Re: Ada safety road Was: Which is right ...

["Vladimir Olensky" <vladimir_olensky@yahoo.com>]

JP Thornley wrote in message <489533776wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk>...
>In article: <7jsdkf$v3p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>  Robert Dewar
><robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:
>
>(with reference to the HRG Guidance)
>
>> it is VERY specifically aimed at safety critical programming
>> in Ada
>
>Definitely not so - and if this becomes the accepted idea then a number
>of programmers are likely to ignore a very useful document.
>(Particularly if they take Robert's other comments to mean that
>safety-critical programming is an arcane art with little connection to
>the 'real-world').
>
>The Guide is _aimed at_ producers of high integrity software, where the
>software supplier is (usually) required to demonstrate the integrity of
>the software to a third party (who may be a certification authority or,
>perhaps, a knowledgeable customer).
>
>It is _useful to_ anyone who wants to make consistent use of one or more
>of the verification methods referenced in the Guide as it helps them to
>avoid language features that are difficult to verify by the chosen
>techniques. (All of the usual techniques are included in the Guide.)


Suport all said above.

>
>In another message, "Vladimir Olensky" <vladimir_olensky@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> What is interesting it was published only 30 days ago (99-05-11).
>
>Yes, but that is simply the latest in a long line of minor revisions.
>The document has been largely unchanged for over a year - an earlier
>draft was published in Ada Letters last year (may have been around
>April/May) and there are some detailed changes from that version, but
>nothing major.


I've seen N350 also.
To my point of view one of the  problems with it was that it  was not widely
advertised.
The other thing is an erroneous idea that writing reliable software  is VERY
specialized area.

Regards,

Vladimir Olensky