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: 103376,6d79efdb8dde2c5a X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "(see below)" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Categories for SPARK on Rosetta Code (Was: SPARK : third example for Roesetta - reviewers welcome) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:34:56 +0100 Message-ID: References: <589eea9a-0b14-4ae5-bf62-9abf4b33e7fb@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <82mxsnuhbq.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <4c69a251$0$2371$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net> <4c69cd5f$0$2375$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net> <1ddee5a6-fc25-4d23-bebd-3364923d0aa5@z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <7cf71c68-4faf-4a7b-a350-405ff7f12ff9@z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <4xb6sjkpzo1r$.138841gile5s0$.dlg@40tude.net> <87wrrnjf9f.fsf_-_@hugsarin.sparre-andersen.dk> <3ed38f7f-372d-422e-9bda-eca8a73d3f0d@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net YhTUyNppEJyK40qKTL0TPg1zVEOEgRIpLAeWZUUVvRpD5MzFFk Cancel-Lock: sha1:yVRJmWvraF0xmY8aU/Ck8w3XfJI= User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.23.0.091001 Thread-Topic: Categories for SPARK on Rosetta Code (Was: SPARK : third example for Roesetta - reviewers welcome) Thread-Index: ActAfT2szcqDjT18p0OkFDG5/EdLnQ== Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13540 Date: 2010-08-20T16:34:56+01:00 List-Id: On 20/08/2010 09:40, in article 3ed38f7f-372d-422e-9bda-eca8a73d3f0d@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, "Phil Thornley" wrote: > On 19 Aug, 07:19, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote: >> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >>> Phil Thornley wrote: >>>> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >>>>> I would also suggest Rosetta Maintainers a new category (we should >>>>> invent a good clear name for it, e.g. "static analysis", "DbC", >>>>> "provability") to add it to this: >> >>>>> http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Language_Comparison_Table >> >>>> Seem's a good idea - how about "statically analysable". >> >>> It is too vague. In some sense any language is, after all there exist >>> static analysis tool for C. SPARK is obviously more than that, but it >>> is tricky to formulate the difference. >> >> Maybe we should simply introduce several categories. >> >> �+ Provable free of exceptions (run-time errors?) >> �+ Finite memory use. >> �+ Free of unreachable code. >> �+ ...? >> >> I'm not quite sure exactly which categories I would formulate. �Maybe >> somebody from Spark-Team at Praxis can help us with some good >> suggestions. > I suspect that if we can't come up with an obvious phrase for what we > mean then there's no chance of other language users understanding what > we mean by it and using it correctly. Proof-oriented? -- Bill Findlay chez blueyonder.co.uk