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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,42427d0d1bf647b1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: Tiring Arguments Around (not about) Two Questions Date: 1996/04/16 Message-ID: <31735FE8.35A9@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 147909494 references: <00001a73+00002c20@msn.com> <828038680.5631@assen.demon.co.uk> <828127251.85@assen.demon.co.uk> <315FD5C9.342F@lfwc.lockheed.com> <3160EFBF.BF9@lfwc.lockheed.com> <31729C6E.4903@lfwc.lockheed.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Date: 1996-04-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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"