Re: employment with ada

[Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>]

Rod Chapman wrote:
> I wrote and presented the slides in question, and I'm very happy to
> answer any questions about their content, either personally
> or in comp.lang.ada.

Well, my primary question is how you expect to convince anyone except
for the already converted when you start talking about "a shack built
on a swamp". You have to expect that almost everyone in the embedded
community has programmed in C at some point, and has produced working
implementations. But you are telling them that by definition, they have
spent their careers producing crap, and you are about to lead them out
of the darkness. I trust you are not surprised at the results.

The PDFs talk about C ambiguity. What exactly is this supposed to mean,
and why is it a problem?

On the other hand, the sample rules for MISRA-C seem to just be rules of
correct C as opposed to limitations on the language. I assume that there
are actually some rules which do impose constraints. The ASSENT product
pages claim that they have a complete checking environment for all the
rules which can be examined by source, but you seem to doubt that this
can be true without explaining why.

Are there multiple implementations of the SPARK Examiner from different
companies? If not, criticism of multiple MISRA-C examiners for producing
somewhat different results is at least a little disingenuous.