Re: Ada safety road Was: Which is right ...

[jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk (JP Thornley)]

In article: <7jsdkf$v3p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>  Robert Dewar 
<robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:

(with reference to the HRG Guidance)

> it is VERY specifically aimed at safety critical programming
> in Ada

Definitely not so - and if this becomes the accepted idea then a number 
of programmers are likely to ignore a very useful document. 
(Particularly if they take Robert's other comments to mean that 
safety-critical programming is an arcane art with little connection to 
the 'real-world').

The Guide is _aimed at_ producers of high integrity software, where the 
software supplier is (usually) required to demonstrate the integrity of 
the software to a third party (who may be a certification authority or, 
perhaps, a knowledgeable customer).

It is _useful to_ anyone who wants to make consistent use of one or more 
of the verification methods referenced in the Guide as it helps them to 
avoid language features that are difficult to verify by the chosen 
techniques. (All of the usual techniques are included in the Guide.)

In another message, "Vladimir Olensky" <vladimir_olensky@yahoo.com> 
wrote:
> What is interesting it was published only 30 days ago (99-05-11).

Yes, but that is simply the latest in a long line of minor revisions. 
The document has been largely unchanged for over a year - an earlier 
draft was published in Ada Letters last year (may have been around 
April/May) and there are some detailed changes from that version, but 
nothing major.

Phil Thornley

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| JP Thornley    EMail jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk                           |
|                      phil.thornley@acm.org                           |
------------------------------------------------------------------------