Re: Ada vs standard languages / reliability

Re: Ada vs standard languages / reliability

[Michael Hunter]

gateley@m2.csc.ti.com (John Gateley) writes:
>I probably shouldn't do this, but here are some nitpicks:
>Ada is NOT a much more powerful language than C. Ada has some features
>that C doesn't, and C has some features that Ada doesn't and so on.
>They are both turing complete (or whatever the phrase is). If you
>are going to make such a broad statement, you need to carefully
>define what powerful is.
Yea...I could write a turing machine in either....in fact you can write a
turing machine with gotos, moves, and compares.  I don't think I would even be
happy with this machine.

Mike Hunter - Box's and CPU's from HELL: iapx80[012]86, PR1ME 50 Series, 1750a
UUCP: {ames!elroy, <routing site>}!gryphon!pnet02!bagpiper
INET: bagpiper@pnet02.gryphon.com

Official lang. interpretations for ACVC 1.11 Ch13 tests?

[Andrew Nguyen]

A question for the Ada language lawyers out there:

ACVC 1.11 contains a large number of new Chapter 13 tests, that make
mandatory certain levels of support and behaviour for the various
Chapter 13 features (length clauses, record rep specs, unchecked
conversion, et al).

The question is, where are the official language interpretations that
back up these new tests?  Are they in AI-00550 through -00564 and -00590
(which still read as though they're in draft stage), or are they elsewhere?

Thanks for any information anyone can provide.  I have Ada IC / DDN access,
so no need to send me actual rulings, just point me in the right direction.

-- 
Andy Nguyen		Team Paranoid		...!uunet!actnyc!aqn