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,e6a2e4a4c0d7d8a6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,3488d9e5d292649f X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-21 12:51:08 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!west.cox.net!cox.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!news.airnews.net!cabal12.airnews.net!usenet From: "John R. Strohm" Newsgroups: comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: status of PL/I as a viable language Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:40:28 -0600 Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Message-ID: X-Orig-Message-ID: References: <1045856952.418085@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net NNTP-Posting-Time: Fri Feb 21 14:49:42 2003 NNTP-Posting-Host: !bcs,1k-Y;W"&$. (Encoded at Airnews!) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.pl1:4406 comp.lang.ada:34386 Date: 2003-02-21T14:40:28-06:00 List-Id: "Frank J. Lhota" wrote in message news:T1w5a.53$8f7.22@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... > > It took them almost two years to write a simple little > > limited regular expression matcher. > > When it comes to software (or hardware, or buildings, or novels, or just > about everything), customers want three things: they want it fast, they want > it cheap, and they want it good. Generally, you can provide them with any > combination of two of these three things. AFAIK, this is an example of > someone producing software that is cheap and extremely good, and the expense > of not being very fast. It wasn't cheap. It wasn't extremely good; it was PERFECT. It did PRECISELY what it was designed to do. It did PRECISELY what the customer WANTED it to do. And it didn't just CLAIM to do that, and CLAIM to have no lurking faults; it was rigorously KNOWN to have no lurking faults. This was part of a long project aimed at developing verification technology to the point that it would be possible to build perfect software. One can easily envision domains where exhaustive testing is just not possible, where it is necessary to KNOW by other techniques that the software is absolutely, positively, correct. In those domains, "debugging" until it LOOKS like it works just isn't good enough.