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: fac41,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,f66d11aeda114c52 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" Subject: Re: Critique of Ariane 5 paper (finally!) Date: 1997/08/22 Message-ID: <33FE2359.4BC7@pseserv3.fw.hac.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 268064033 Sender: usenet@most.fw.hac.com (News Administration) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: sparc02 References: <33E503B3.3278@flash.net> <33E8FC54.41C67EA6@eiffel.com> <33E9B217.39DA@flash.net> <33EA5592.5855@flash.net> <33EB4935.167EB0E7@eiffel.com> <33EB754E.446B9B3D@eiffel.com> <33EBE46D.2149@flash.net> <33EF9487.41C67EA6@eiffel.com> <33F22B91.167EB0E7@eiffel.com> <33FCCC68.60B@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> <33FDCAF1.1CFBAE39@eiffel.com> Organization: Hughes Defense Communications Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-08-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: > > what some people disagree with is the use of two definitions of > > DBC by the same advocates. > > > > Def'n 1 - Associating specifications with software elements" and > > related practices. > > Def'n 2 - The Eiffel implementation of a subset of these practices. > > > > Now before anyone denies having used definition 2, please explain > > what definition of DBC satisfies the claim "only Eiffel directly > > supports DBC" > > This has been explained many times. One can to some degree > apply the principles of Design by Contract in any language, > but among commercially commercially available languages Eiffel > is the only one to offer direct support for "associating > specifications with software elements" as part of the software > elements themselves, i.e. using language constructs -- > preconditions, postconditions, class invariants, loop invariants, > loop variants. I say again: If DBC is defined as "Associating specifications with software elements", then Eiffel indeed directly supports a SUBSET of DBC. Ada directly supports another subset of DBC. C++ (shudder) directly supports yet another subset of DBC. And with a little extra work, the user of any of these languages can handle a larger subset. But none of them can completely support the whole thing. And the intersection of the subsets is not empty. I keep seeing most of the Eiffel advocates and a few of the Ada advocates arguing, "My language supports DBC; your language does not look like my language; therefore your language does not support DBC." Yet when they post specific examples, the syntax differences cannot hide (from me at least) the obvious similarities. > In other languages ... does not go as far, because > the presence of the assertion constructs provides Eiffel > users with major benefits such as: [ a long list of things that ARE being done with Ada and other languages ] [ followed by the claim that only Eiffel users do these things. ] -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be wwgrol AT pseserv3.fw.hac.com Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising on them is trespassing! ----------------------------------------------------------------------