From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 109fba,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid109fba,gid115aec,gidf43e6,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Jerry Coffin" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada) Date: 16 Mar 2005 15:27:28 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1111015648.669832.140620@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> References: <1110266099.441421.179290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1110332933.587110.260410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1110390097.532139.43430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <422f3808$0$30165$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> <1110409958.685759.249420@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <15SdnYvJ0_x3Vq3fRVn-3Q@megapath.net> <1110522060.091940.178510@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1110556346.841594.212520@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <4952804.Myubg7stsI@linux1.krischik.com> <1110739276.774946.103020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1110858931.523773.124170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1110895220.422372.189820@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.236.235.120 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1111015653 10540 127.0.0.1 (16 Mar 2005 23:27:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 23:27:33 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=165.236.235.120; posting-account=mZiOqwwAAAC5YZsJDHJLeReHGPXV5ENp Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9525 comp.lang.c++:46084 comp.realtime:1545 comp.software-eng:5130 Date: 2005-03-16T15:27:28-08:00 List-Id: Randy Brukardt wrote: [ the AJPO delegating testing authority before it was shut down ... ] > I don't know whether it was done formally or not; I wasn't involved > with that. Such a thing was either one formally, or not at all. > In any case, it is irrelevant to the existence of the ACAA, operated > under the requirements of an ISO standard, for performing conformity > assessment of Ada compilers. Or do you want to deny that I actually > exist, that the ACAA and its websites, test suites, and authorized > laboratories, exists? The question is not one of existence. The original claim, however, was one of their being "official" authorities. The claim that this testing is somehow "officia" seems to be based on two claims: one, that the AJPO delegated the authority before it was shut down, and 2) that to some extent or other, you're acting as part of, under the saction of, or are in some other way connected with the ISO (e.g. "Although the Ada tool vendors finance it through the ARA, the ACAA's real boss is the ISO" (from http://www.adaic.com/compilers/acaa.html). At this point, it seems quite doubtful to me that the AJPO did any such thing. The ISO has this to say: ISO itself does not carry out conformity assessment. However, in partnership with IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission), ISO develops ISO/IEC guides and standards to be used by organizations which carry out conformity assessment activities. The voluntary criteria contained in these guides and standards represent an international consensus on what constitutes best practice. (taken from: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/aboutiso/introduction/index.html). The bottom line seems to be that the ISO will take responsibility for the fact that they wrote the standard you claim to follow -- but that they disavow any and all other involvement with, or any more than the most peripheral knowledge of you. So, 1) one of the statements on your web site is probably outright false, and another is saved from outright falsehood primarily by being sufficiently vague as to only qualify as "misleading" 2) your claim about my making a false statement was _probably_ itself false, and at best certainly devoid of support 3) your statements about the quality of an Ada compiler are no more "official" than mine or anybody else's. The basic idea of an "official" verification process is that the testing be done by a disinterested party -- one who gains _only_ by the tests being accurate, NOT by them producing any particular result. What we have here seems to be exactly the opposite: the Ada vendors have put together a couple of puppet groups to give an illusion of there being some distance between themselves and the testers, but in reality the testers realize full well exactly where all their money comes from, and at least some of them are even still directly associated with the very Ada vendors they claim to be policing! That isn't intended to imply, nor do I claim, that any of the testing involved has ever been falsified or even mildly inaccurate. OTOH, it throws considerable doubt on the claim that these tests should be trusted because they're conducted by an "official" authority operating with the ISO as its boss. So, the question is not one of whether you exist -- but of whether you and/or your testing should be trusted. In my view, your own posts have thrown this into considerable doubt (at best). -- Later, Jerry. The universe is a figment of its own imagination.