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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a00006d3c4735d70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f849b,b8d52151b7b306d2 X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-11 11:14:50 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <40019AE0.947C2737@yahoo.com> From: CBFalconer Reply-To: cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net Organization: Ched Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems References: <3fe00b82.90228601@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3ff0687f.528387944@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <1086072.fFeiH4ICbz@linux1.krischik.com> <3ff18d4d.603356952@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <1731094.1f7Irsyk1h@linux1.krischik.com> <3ff1b8ef.614528516@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3FF1E06D.A351CCB4@yahoo.com> <3ff20cc8.635997032@News.CIS.DFN.DE> Organization: LJK Software Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:14:49 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.76.139.29 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1073848489 12.76.139.29 (Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:14:49 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:14:49 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.arch.embedded:7278 comp.lang.ada:4340 Date: 2004-01-11T19:14:49+00:00 List-Id: "Everett M. Greene" wrote: > "John R. Strohm" writes: > > ... snip ... > > > > Yes, in that writing rigorous formal specifications is HARD WORK. > > > > No, in that the effort you put into writing those rigorous formal > > specifications almost always translates into significantly-reduced > > effort when writing the code that implements those specifications, > > because now you have a SOLID understanding, where you used to have > > only a sketchy understanding. > > It has been my observation that there's an inverse relation > between the difficulty in describing what's needed and the > difficulty in implementing it. Perhaps this is just another > aspect of the specification difficulty -- once you've clearly > specified what's needed, it's not that difficult to implement it. And at other times writing the specification becomes easy after you have implemented the widget. Maybe the key is to remember that both the specification and implementation are always subject to revision in the light of experience, deeper analysis, etc. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. USE worldnet address!