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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e1a91c4d90acda97 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,e1a91c4d90acda97 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-22 07:22:46 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!63.208.208.143!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail From: Marin David Condic Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Safety-Critical Systems Developed Using C++ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:20:37 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: <3A6C4FC5.28DD7268@acm.org> References: <945eeq$vmk$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A664EC4.6F679BE0@acm.org> <947ddu$jpd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A6742EF.D9136D3@adapower.net> <3A6774DA.E999CEF7@acm.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.bb.f4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 22 Jan 2001 15:20:01 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (WinNT; I) Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4302 comp.lang.c++:41343 Date: 2001-01-22T15:20:01+00:00 List-Id: I'll be the *last* one to claim that Ada doesn't enhance reliability and reduce risk. I hope that's clear. My statement that it is possible to write reliable software in C relates more to the fact that there are more ways of insuring correctness than just compiler/language features. For example, extensive code-reads, thorough unit testing, integration testing, language preprocessors (lint?) automated test tools, various forms of analysis, etc. all figure in to building a reliable piece of software. If I don't have language support, I can rely more heavily on some of the other available tools. Albeit, at considerably more expense. And therein lies the rub. If it costs lots more to insure reliability in C then there is less likelihood it will get done. I'm still a proponent of the notion that in safety critical systems, Ada should be used where possible. Its just that you don't always have this capability. And let's remember that there were safety critical systems that were written in assembly language and they worked fine too. So it *can* be done. Just not as easily. MDC Larry Kilgallen wrote: > As a customer (victim?) rather than provider of air travel, > I am less interested in the theoretical possibility of > getting it right and much more concerned about what the > probability is they got it right on some particular plane. -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - http://www.quadruscorp.com/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ "I'd trade it all for just a little more" -- Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10] ======================================================================