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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,28cd155693714664 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-18 14:17:39 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!peer1-sjc1.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator2-la!propagator-la!news-in.superfeed.net!news-in-la.newsfeeds.com!newsfeed.onecall.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Faulty languages and Liability Date: 18 Jun 2002 16:17:18 -0600 Organization: LJK Software Message-ID: <9l1yXnVJaOCo@eisner.encompasserve.org> References: <3D0DE5E2.5010904@mail.com> <3D0F91D3.87CDBDF7@NOSPAM.visteon.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1024434967 10726 192.135.80.34 (18 Jun 2002 21:16:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 21:16:07 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26308 Date: 2002-06-18T16:17:18-06:00 List-Id: In article <3D0F91D3.87CDBDF7@NOSPAM.visteon.com>, John Kern writes: > > > Larry Kilgallen wrote: > >> >> No rational person is going to haul you into court because you use C++. >> Somebody who hauls you into court because your software blew up may >> bring up the issue of language as _one_ of a series of issues regarding >> the reliability of your development process. I presume that if they >> say you didn't use Ada, you will also didn't use plain C. Presumably >> you will also show that you were not programming in C using a compiler >> that happened to be a C++ compiler. >> > I could see being attacked for not using a "validated" compiler. Are > there any validated C or C++ compilers? I wouldn't know. Are the > languages standardized enough to allow a validation suite? In a real court case, issues of compiler validation would likely not have any bearing unless it can be shown the compiler in question made an error that would have been caught by a validated compiler.