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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d6589e7b2c60444 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-11 13:03:50 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!wn12feed!worldnet.att.net!199.45.49.37!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny01.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030419 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: employment with ada References: <626e8ae.0305011636.5e899da3@posting.google.com> <4mo7bvc2n70k6eikm3muu2965nbo3m77ov@4ax.com> <3EB415CB.6D97B14D@adaworks.com> <6Mcta.37135$D%4.20715@nwrdny03.gnilink.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 20:03:48 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.84.205.197 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny01.gnilink.net 1052683428 162.84.205.197 (Sun, 11 May 2003 16:03:48 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 16:03:48 EDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:37193 Date: 2003-05-11T20:03:48+00:00 List-Id: 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.