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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,20280f498071efd3 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!q27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Martin Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Software Quality in Science Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:09:09 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <3a81efa6-0f3f-4ac4-ad74-7546051c9ee8@q27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> References: <1198a288-b013-45a8-907f-7fe227e6294e@m27g2000prl.googlegroups.com> <04185bf3-f83a-4fbe-b380-c6d8aa4105e6@w27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> <4b720550$0$7624$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 20.133.0.8 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1265814549 5304 127.0.0.1 (10 Feb 2010 15:09:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:09:09 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: q27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=20.133.0.8; posting-account=g4n69woAAACHKbpceNrvOhHWViIbdQ9G User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20091221 Firefox/3.5.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9086 Date: 2010-02-10T07:09:09-08:00 List-Id: On Feb 10, 2:34=A0pm, Stephen Leake wrote: > Georg Bauhaus writes: > > Robert A Duff wrote: > >> Jerry writes: > > >>> ...The net result of changing languages appears > >>> to be that the overall defect density appears to be about the same, > >>> (Hatton 1997). In other words, when a language corrects one > >>> deficiency, it appears to add one of its own." > > >> That assertion requires evidence, and I don't see it here! > > > Indeed, looking at some of the things that Les Hatton suggests > > to be doing for a living, there might be an incentive not to > > perform a comparative study of the effects of using statically > > checked C (with Safer C (TM)) versus statically "checked" Ada > > (Spark, or SofCheck Inspector (TM)). IOW, language choice does not > > matter as long as you use our tools and participate in our training > > courses. > > That has almost always been my reaction when I attend a software tools > sales pitch; "I don't need that tool, the Ada compiler already does > all of it". > > Adacontrol and SPARK are tools I would consider using (they add real > value beyond the Ada compiler), but I've never been to a sales pitch > for those :). > > > His arguments still seem based on studies from the mid 1990s. > > A study is something at least. Is there anything in the Tokeneer > > data that could serve as a basis for a comparison? > > What failure modes might Spark add? > > Brain pain, for one. Understanding how to use Ada well is an order of > magnitude harder than understanding how to use C; I suspect SPARK is > another large increase (I've only looked into it lightly, never tried > to seriously use it). > > I suspect this is one reason Ada has failed to take over the > programming space; you have to be a really good programmer to fully > benefit from it, and it's just not worth it for a mediocre programmer. > > -- > -- Stephe No, no!! I've worked with guys I won't trust to programme my VCR...but with an Ada compiler they were able to generate something that worked (and met timing/space requirements). If they'd been let loose with a C compiler (or worse a C++ one) they'd still be at now (10 years on)... I'd add a smiley but it's sad really... Cheers -- Martin