Ada validation is virtually worthless

[rajt@gco.apana.org.au (Raj Thomas)]

>John McCabe said
>  Machine_Code. Your response to my description of their implementation
>  was that this was precisely an improper extension. As this
>  implementation ahs been around for donkeys years, how did it get
>  through the validation process with an improper extension as obvious
>  as that?"

>Robert Dewar said
>First of all, as is clearly stated in the validation procedures document
> the approach for eliminating
>extensions is the DOC (declaration of conformance). Obviously no black
>box testing can detect extensions in a systematic way, and even examining
>the code is an impractical and ineffective way of making extensions. The
>DOC actually declares that you have no deliberate extensions.

Aah !
Let me see if I understand:
1. Validation does nothing to guarantee compiler correctness / "
bug-freeness"/ usability / object code quality
2. Validation does provide for ensuring that illegal extensions and
other crapola does not exist.
3. However, some of the techniques used for ensuring this depend on
vendor honesty eg: " the approach for eliminating
extensions is the DOC (declaration of conformance)...."
4. We all know about vendor honesty...

My conclusions:
a. Validated compliers have been validated
 ( Yes, it is a tautology and like all tautologies, of limited use.. )
b. Validation does not guarantee anything that is of great use to the
developer...
c. Validation is a useful marketing tool.
d. Validation is essential if you are marketing to the American DODo

Now it is all perfectly clear :-)
Octopus traps
summer's moonspun dreams
soon fade away.
Basho 1644