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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/01/15 Message-ID: <77m9uf$6aa$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 432731680 References: <369C9AD8.85E6A79A@concentric.net> <77jmjk$r7s$1@remarQ.com> <916309035.24342.0.nnrp-09.c2decf94@news.demon.co.uk> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x3.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jan 15 02:42:25 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-01-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <916309035.24342.0.nnrp-09.c2decf94@news.demon.co.uk>, forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk wrote: > David Frantz reads too much into the implications of an > Ada compiler having passed the validation suite. In > particular, it does not mean that `you can implement with > the entire language and not have to worry about compiler > technology catching up'. > It is possible for compilers that produce wrong or costly > code for many constructions to pass the validation suite. > (For instance, one version of a widely used validated > commercial compiler > was found to miscompile certain Boolean expressions[!].) > The only thing you can conclude is that the compiler > passed the given version of the validation suite. Yes, some people to read too much into validation, but you read far too little! Validation certainly does not guarantee conformance, but it does guarantee that (a) the compiler implements pretty much all features of the language with no major omissions, you are not in the common C++ state of wondering whether a given compiler does or does not implement name spaces or exceptions or ... (b) the test suite, constructed with many person years of effort is remarkably comprehensive, and one thing you can say for sure is that any implementor who passes the tests knows Ada very well *AS DEFINED IN THE ISO STANDARD*. This is an important criterion! Of course this does not guarantee that the compiler is bug free, we don't know how to do that, but it lessons the chance of major design flaws resulting from a lack of such understanding. I have often seen design flaws of this type in compilers for other languages which do not have a comprehensive test suite that is widely recognized. Robert Dewar -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own