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!g14g2000cwa.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: 27 Mar 2005 22:02:11 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1111989731.165537.24040@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <871xau9nlh.fsf@insalien.org> <3SjWd.103128$Vf.3969241@news000.worldonline.dk> <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org> <1110052142.832650@athnrd02> <1110284070.410136.205090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <395uqaF5rhu2mU1@individual.net> <1111607633.301232.62490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1111628011.160315.134740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1111732101.995662.309040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1111785256.454375.76600@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1369131.HYMxOlSdZt@linux1.krischik.com> <1111868963.494133.291150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1111952485.639270.227910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.64.130.76 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1111989735 18368 127.0.0.1 (28 Mar 2005 06:02:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:02:15 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1111952485.639270.227910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.64.130.76; posting-account=mZiOqwwAAAC5YZsJDHJLeReHGPXV5ENp Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10054 comp.lang.c++:47560 comp.realtime:1763 comp.software-eng:5392 Date: 2005-03-27T22:02:11-08:00 List-Id: Chad R. Meiners wrote: > > Second, this seems to assume that all the code is generated by SCADE, > > and none written directly. This does NOT seem to be the case -- if > > you look at page 6 of: > > http://scilabsoft.inria.fr/events/05_11_03/ESTEREL.pdf > > you'll see that they only claim 70% of the code was generated by > > SCADE. Given the size of project we're talking about, the remaining > > 30% is a _significant_ amount of code. It seems likely to me that if > > they were using Ada for the hand-written code, they'd generate Ada > > as well. > > First, this nine slide sales pitch doesn't actually mention any > language other than SCADE. And so? What part of "it seems likely" don't you understand? > Second, the 70% could have been the > user interface, which communicated with a seperate subsystem that > made up the bulk of the the remaining 30%. And so? The point is that picking the language for that 70% seems to take one choice in one list box -- i.e. the most utterly trivial amount of work possible. With that given, are you honestly suggesting that it's particularly likely that they'd choose to generate C if they were planning to write the remainder in Ada? > If a language like > SCADE can't generate 95-99% of the code that it needs for a > project, it isn't a very good formal tool. I don't recall anybody here having suggested that SCADE is the be-all and end-all of format tools. OTOH, I have to point out that unless their claims are flat-out falsehoods, it's been selected by people you'd expect to be reasonably well-qualified to be used in some projects that give every appearance of being quite important to those involved. > 30% is an aweful lot > of room to invalidate any assurances that SCADE provided about > the 70%. It would be my educated guess that SCADE was used in > a subsystem which represented about 70% of the total code of > the complete system. Anyway, when you deal with code > generators size is deceptive. Generated code can be bloated very > easily. > > As I mentioned previously, you are jumping to conclusions that are not > supported by your evidence I drew exactly two conclusions: 1) that 100% minus 70% leaves 30%, and 2) that these _seem_ to be sufficiently large projects that 30% of them still constitutes a substantial amount of code. Since you claim that my conclusions (plural) are unsupported by the evidence, and I only drew two conclusions to start with, your claim must apply to both. So, let's start with the first: please expound on your form of math in which 100 minus 70 doesn't equal 30. -- Later, Jerry. The universe is a figment of its own imagination.