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=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: Safety-critical development in Ada and Eiffel Date: 1997/07/15 Message-ID: <33CBFD8C.1763@flash.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 257078603 References: <5q45af$kjs$1@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu> Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Reply-To: keg0@flash.net Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-07-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Don Harrison wrote: > > Robert S. White wrote: > > :In article , gwinn@res.ray.com > :says... > : ...snip... > :>However, there was a lot more to it than to say it was Ada: We were > :>required to use a special safety-critical-code subset of Ada, which was > :>*sharply* smaller than Ada83. (I no longer recall the details, but I > :>could dig them up, given a week or three. It seems to me that it was a > :>commercial product.) > :> > :>Perhaps aside from the strong typing, it was not clear just what was left > :>that was particular to Ada, or why one couldn't do the same radical > :>simplification to any language one might choose, to much the same effect. > :> > :>So, I don't know that I buy the theory that Ada83 or Ada95 is the only > :>choice for safety-critical systems, as what survives isn't really either > :>language, and one can do the same surgery on any reasonable language. > : ...snip... > : > : Sorry Joe I do not agree! > > Well, you're both right. Joe is right is saying that when you strip out (read > don't use) the powerful features of languages for safety-critical applications, > they start to look the same. You're also right in saying that what's left over > become the distinguishing features. > > :Even if you strip down Ada 83 to a small > :subset you still benefit from a lot of the design requirements > :that went into the language. > > Even more so with Eiffel because you're still have, among other things, the > reliability/reuse enhancing facilities of: > > - Built-in, general purpose, inheritable contracts. > - A rigorous, fine-grained encapsulation model. Actually, some of the Eiffel inheritance got stripped out in a previous post, as I recall. What was left of Eiffel looked a lot like Ada. > > : I have been implementing software solutions in industry since 1978 > :so I think I qualify as an equal curmudgeon to yourself as far is to > :what works and what does not work. I hate BS statements like this! The thread clearly states, "Safety-critical development". Do you do safety-critical systems in Eiffel? If so, please describe these systems.