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,aef4913dd6741a38
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news2.google.com!newsread.com!news-xfer.newsread.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.tiscali.de!uio.no!newsfeed1.e.nsc.no!news4.e.nsc.no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
Sender: leifm@huldreheim.no-ip.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ADA vs Java
References: <bllse.12013$q46.11010@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>
 <d8sokd$mka$1@news1brm.Central.Sun.COM> <uis0cdqez.fsf@obry.net>
 <pan.2005.06.18.11.20.22.386912@spacetime.de> <u8y17eoyb.fsf@obry.net>
 <pan.2005.06.18.21.43.42.515021@telus.net> <uoea2u9t1.fsf@obry.net>
 <pan.2005.06.19.22.22.32.110658@telus.net> <uhdfttuad.fsf@obry.net>
 <pan.2005.06.20.22.34.52.955118@telus.net>
 <mailman.73.1119340587.17633.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
From: Leif Roar Moldskred <rmoldskr+usenet@online.no>
Message-ID: <87k6ko59eq.fsf@huldreheim.no-ip.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.164.51.55
X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@telenor.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:42:47 MEST
X-Trace: news4.ulv.nextra.no 1119346967 85.164.51.55
Date: 21 Jun 2005 11:47:09 +0200
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11523
Date: 2005-06-21T11:47:09+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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?