Re: ADA vs Java

[Leif Roar Moldskred <rmoldskr+usenet@online.no>]

Preben Randhol <randhol+cla@pvv.org> writes:
 
> So your saying: Use Java, C++ etc... for safety-critical applications.
> The reason for the warning NOT to do so is purly legal protection and it
> is not due to that the languages are not suited for the task?

Actually, I think he is correct in his surmise. This is a boilerplate
warning that's slapped on to limit liability and it says more about
whether Sun consider safety critical system a target _market_ for Java
than whether they consider Java _suitable_ for such code. (Of course,
Java isn't suitable for safety critical systems, which is probably
part of the reason why Sun doesn't consider such a target market.)

Like with "No user serviceable parts inside" and similar warning
labels, the issue is what the provider guarantees for their product,
and not really what the product is. "No user serviceable parts inside"
doesn't actually mean there isn't any parts you can't service yourself
(there might or there might not be.) Rather, it means "We have not
designed this product for you to service the parts yourself; so if you
try, don't come crying to us if you break something."

-- 
Leif Roar Moldskred
Got Sfik?