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: 103376,59dddae4a1f01e1a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen)
Subject: Re: Software Safety (was: Need help with PowerPC/Ada and realtime
 tasking)
Date: 1996/06/12
Message-ID: <4pmlbv$13gs@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 159772083
distribution: world
references: <d-struble.107.001A95C3@ti.com> <Ds6M4D.E09@world.std.com>
 <31AD794D.2E62@lmtas.lmco.com> <dewar.833504787@schonberg>
 <DsFM3B.CqB@world.std.com> <4p4trk$tc5@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
 <31B7E171.7144@lmtas.lmco.com>
organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
reply-to: ncohen@watson.ibm.com
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-06-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <31B7E171.7144@lmtas.lmco.com>, Ken Garlington
<garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com> writes: 

|> This sounds reasonable. Consider the example of someone buying a compiler,
|> and saying, "I want a compiler that passes the ACVC!" So, the vendor provides
|> such a compiler, and thus expects payment for completing the contract. Then,
|> the user says, "Wait a minute! The generated code is too slow! I'm not paying!"
|> I wouldn't conside that complaint sufficient to withhold payment, if execution
|> performance wasn't part of the agreement...

The question is whether the compiler vendor is more interested in
satisfying the customer or beating him in court.

Which do you think is more conducive to repeat business?

--
Norman H. Cohen    ncohen@watson.ibm.com