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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 101b33,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid101b33,public X-Google-Thread: f849b,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public From: Marin David Condic Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/01/14 Message-ID: <369E09E2.BE8D4163@pwfl.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 432561737 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: condicma@bogon.pwfl.com References: <369C9AD8.85E6A79A@concentric.net> <77jmjk$r7s$1@remarQ.com> <916309035.24342.0.nnrp-09.c2decf94@news.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Pratt & Whitney Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: diespammer@pwfl.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java,comp.java.advocacy,comp.realtime,comp.arch.embedded,comp.object,comp.lang.java.programmer Date: 1999-01-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Validation may be overrated if one wants to read into that some guarantee of quality. But surely, validation has to say *something* about the "goodness" of a compiler, doesn't it? It's got to be better than never having run any sort of validation suite at all, doesn't it? With validation you at least know that you aren't dealing with a subset compiler or a compiler where the the developers took the attitude of "I know the standard says this feature should look like this, but I didn't like that so I changed it to this other thing." I remember working with somebody's Pascal compiler years ago where I had existing code using dynamic memory allocation in the manner indicated by most books on the subject. (This was before anybody had a "standard" for Pascal beyond whatever Wirth had written about it.) The compiler writers had decided that they didn't like the way things were dynamically allocated so they came up with some sort of stack based thing using "mark" and "release" operations. Naturally, this sick, twisted perversion of the language forced a complete structural redesign of the existing code because the assumptions it was built under were no longer true. And so it goes. Had the compiler been required to run some sort of validation suite, it might have saved the redesign effort. That's got to be worth something. MDC forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk wrote: > > David Frantz reads too much into the implications of an Ada > compiler having passed the validation suite. In particular, > it does not mean that `you can implement with the entire language > and not have to worry about compiler technology catching up'. > It is possible for compilers that produce wrong or costly > code for many constructions to pass the validation suite. > (For instance, one version of a widely used validated commercial compiler > was found to miscompile certain Boolean expressions[!].) > The only thing you can conclude is that the compiler passed > the given version of the validation suite. -- Marin David Condic Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600 Ph: 561.796.8997 Fx: 561.796.4669 ***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.*** "Nobody shot me." -- Last words of Frank Gusenberg when asked by police who shot him fourteen times with a machine gun in the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre.