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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f948976d12c7ee33 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-25 11:00:49 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: snarflemike@yahoo.com (Mike Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Boeing and Dreamliner Date: 25 Jun 2003 11:00:48 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <20619edc.0306251000.16758c31@posting.google.com> References: <3EF5F3F3.6000806@attbi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 154.6.152.68 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1056564049 8251 127.0.0.1 (25 Jun 2003 18:00:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Jun 2003 18:00:49 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39734 Date: 2003-06-25T18:00:49+00:00 List-Id: Hyman Rosen wrote in message news:... > Wesley Groleau wrote: > > In some application domains, using C++ should be criminal. > > Umm, no. > > > The fact that Ada is not perfect will NEVER justify using > > something that's worse when lives are at stake. > > C++ isn't worse. It's different. Here's a report that reaches a different conclusion: “....results of the UK Ministry of Defense’s own retrospective IV&V program that was carried out by Aerosystems International at Yeovil in the UK. It should be remembered that the code examined by Aerosystems had already been cleared to DO-178B Level A standards, which should indicate that it was suitable for safety-critical flight purposes. Key conclusions of this study follow: • Significant, potentially safety-critical errors were found by static analysis in code developed to DO-178B Level A. • Properties of the SPARK code (including proof of exception freedom) could readily be proved against Lockheed’s semi-formal specification; this proof was shown to be cheaper than weaker forms of semantic analysis performed on non-SPARK code. • SPARK code was found to have only 10 percent of the residual errors of full Ada; Ada was found to have only 10 percent of the residual errors of code written in C. This is an interesting counter to those who maintain that choice of programming language does not matter, and that critical code can be written correctly in any language: The claim may be true in principle but clearly is not commonly achieved in practice.” from http://www.sparkada.com/downloads/Mar2002Amey.pdf Unless you are prepared to demonstrate that C++ is 10 (ref. full Ada) to 100 (ref. SPARK Ada) times safer than C, the only reasonable conclusion is that C++ is indeed "worse." BTW, I imagine that the C code in question was already based on a "safe subset" of the C language, so that's what you'd need to show improvment over. Mike