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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!corton!inria!enst!meduse!rosen From: rosen@meduse.enst.fr (Jean Pierre Rosen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Stability for Embedded Applications? Summary: Ada stability... no kidding! Message-ID: <51@meduse.enst.fr> Date: 19 Jan 91 10:33:11 GMT References: <9101130210.AA02405@NSWC-WO.ARPA> Organization: Telecom-Paris, Paris France List-Id: Are you serious when you say things were easier with Turbo-Pascal? Certainly no problem with different versions of the validation, there is no validation... just new versions of the language appearing every year or so, with incompatibilities (do you remember upgrading from V3.0 to V4.0? It still hurts!). And will Borland exist for the next 40 years? You'd better hope so, because there is no alternate vendor for Turbo-Pascal! There is only one Ada language, and all versions of the ACVC test this same language; 1.11 has just more tests than 1.10. No other language is so strictely controlled, so uniform, so validated or has so many compilers second sources. It does not mean there is no risk for the future: it just means that the risks are order of magnitude lower than with any other language. J-P. Rosen ADALOG