Re: Tiring Arguments Around (not about) Two Questions

[Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com>]

Gary McKee wrote:
> 
> Ken, As I mentioned in my previous message, there is a WELL-ESTABLISHED
> product/technology that is designed to address the quality issues, details
> are below. The ACES was developed as a result of a multi-year effort from a
> consortium of govt/industry/academia, certainly an "industry-wide effort"
> such as you suggest.

So, you're saying that all vendors use ACES as a test tool for their products?
If not, then ACES absolutely _is not_ what I suggest.

> The ACES specifically address several of the topics itemized above.

As do many other product/technologies. Which ones should be standardized
(either formally or informally) for all vendors, in order to raise compiler
quality across all compilers.

> Why don't we transition this
> discussion from the ACVC (which is NOT about quality) to a discussion of
> the ACES (which is about quality)?

OK - Are you suggesting that ACES should be a standand for all vendors?

> There is a significant difference in purpose between validation (ACVC) and
> evaluation (ACES).

Why is there a significant difference?

"evaluate" - "to determine the significance or worth of usu. by careful appraisal
and study."

"validate" - "to support or corroborate on a sound or authoritative basis."

Which do I want? As Deion says, "Both."

Why can't we corroborate on a sound or authoritative basis the significance or worth
of Ada compilers by careful appraisal and study? Why are these antonyms in the
Ada community?

> I have used this system extensively and I
> do recommend it for the quality assessment work that you are interested in.

You recommend me, the user, running ACES. Oh, joy. That certainly seems
efficient to me.

-- 
LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"