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: 103376,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 109fba,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid109fba,gid115aec,gidf43e6,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:13:18 -0600 From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng References: <1110332933.587110.260410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1110390097.532139.43430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <422f3808$0$30165$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> <1110409958.685759.249420@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <15SdnYvJ0_x3Vq3fRVn-3Q@megapath.net> <1110522060.091940.178510@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1110556346.841594.212520@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <4952804.Myubg7stsI@linux1.krischik.com> <1110739276.774946.103020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1110858931.523773.124170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1110895220.422372.189820@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1111015648.669832.140620@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1111085060.475613.176310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:15:40 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4927.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200 Message-ID: <4rCdnfSqj_KTkqffRVn-ug@megapath.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38 X-Trace: sv3-DzNO5IlcsNDSxk2yMNq1wFJgaWmhYKUMIHSeAm8NYoZU261jhgj9lOfdGr830bZx1lrhjDL7n7b3/7J!2PVeNmiCx5Uxv/+AJYWP9kCGtsXBFnvaTRORHKD773qkdU5jLDUOq7kex9uKorJZmwSG2GnKT0xJ X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9568 comp.lang.c++:46213 comp.realtime:1556 comp.software-eng:5141 Date: 2005-03-17T17:15:40-06:00 List-Id: "Jerry Coffin" wrote in message news:1111085060.475613.176310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... ... > The question is the degree to which that situation holds here. Thus > far, you've provided essentially nothing in the way of independent > corroboration of any of your statements at all. You make a statement > here, and then offer your own statement on your own web site as the > "corroborating evidence." I can't imagine what sort of "independent corroboration" would satisfy you (or why it matters, for that matter). I've already pointed you at the ISO standard and the WG9 web site. Pretty much all of the other material on testing was written by me. There's nothing sinister about that: I'm the only one that is paid here, and thus I end up writing it. Of course, the volunteer review board reviewed and approved that material. But even if that was done publically, it wouldn't satisfy you, because *I* the webmaster of the site and therefore would have probably formatted and posted the material. Our budget isn't large enough to have multiple people doing overlapping jobs just to prove some sort of independence. Our way of proving relability is to conduct the entire process in public. Thus, the procedures, test reports, and test suite are all publically available. And I insist that these have enough information in them so that any member of the public can reproduce the testing. (This isn't like the destructive testing of ICs that only a few specialists can run -- anyone who knows how to run a compiler can run the tests on it; and they had better get the same results.) That means that any fault in the process can be exposed, and that should provide a strong incentive to avoid bending the rules. If that is not good enough for you, then there is nothing else I can say. Personally, I would trust an open process over one that is not open, not matter how independent the latter is. After all, the supposedly independent government run process was cheated several times; because the reports weren't readily available to the public, there was little chance that those would be detected. Randy.