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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!backlog3.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 11:49:37 -0500 Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 12:49:36 -0400 From: Alan Browne User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: OpenSSL development (Heartbleed) References: <-OGdnezdYpRWFc_OnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com> <535297f1$0$6715$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <5352a76f$0$6720$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <3ZSdnd4A49AxV8_OnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@giganews.com> <5352da76$0$6701$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <53538283$0$6715$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> In-Reply-To: <53538283$0$6715$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-wneiCakMFyBw71OHWbH+t/bFGf4JZxaUpqb6sh6AILA5dcsdRiTO7xVbXE27mIFebW5/wCR5JIEjmZh!6rcJUhP5/3i+8w6YSV4eWH0Ahj37fpVMCJ3O9iWyzPBK5KMKeMK0h55W2SZFoC8AyCRuNJFtdQ== X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 6345 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:185907 Date: 2014-04-20T12:49:36-04:00 List-Id: On 2014.04.20, 04:17 , Georg Bauhaus wrote: > On 19/04/14 22:53, Alan Browne wrote: >> Now, do you really think the industry will change to something more >> formalized and requirements driven? Use Ada as a fundamental building= >> block of it? > > Where C (or no S/E) is being used, directly, or indirectly by using > libraries written in C, the industry seems stuck in a loop of at least > > (1) self-referential confirmation, > (2) insufficient irritation caused by C (or lack of S/E), and > (3) sufficient competitive equality. > > One faint hope that I currently maintain is that some BigCo, not the > industry, might produce a change to using C. The change might be like > the ones just now performed in the case of hugely popular languages: > PHP might become Hack everywhere because Facebook has produced Hack by > "enhancing" PHP; Microsoft has already produced C#, VB#, etc., by > "enhancing" each of the respective assimilated languages; Apple's > "enhanced" C in Objective-C is already far above what the C standard > requires of an implementation if seen through the lenses of their > static analyzer. Google makes their talented staff spend some "free" > time on "enhancing" the special qualities of JavaScript. > > And the results are all free, working, and ubiquitous. Is it possible to identify a particular client side layer item (app,=20 transport, internet or link) that is relatively small that could be=20 designed and written in Ada and that could "drop in" as a replacement? Obviously it would have to hook up and down in the system and 'look' for = all intents and purposes like its C predecessor? That would be a good proving ground for an Ada approach. How to link=20 them to the "C" code above and below .... __ > [*] One anecdote I heard was about two teams, one using C++, the > other using SPARK, programming to the same specification for one > year. Either team could use a simulator. The teams were tasked with > producing programs for driving a test device. The C++ team > debugged their software into existence, frequently testing in the > simulator. The SPARK team first found a bug in the specification, > then went on to prove software into existence, hardly if ever using > the simulator. Finally, the C++ team had implemented 80% of the feature= s. > Some bugs were found in the final product. The SPARK team had > implemented 100% of the features (close to closing time). No bugs > were found in the final product. > Interpretation of the result: Use of the approach of C++ is > preferable since project management then does not suffer a heart > attack because they have no facts to report while the project > is underway. Amusing. But there's nothing to prevent progress reporting on=20 non-spiral development - the gates just have to be defined correctly. Reminds me of a programmer assigned, alone, to write the software for an = avionics system. He chose assembler on a microprocessor for which he=20 had no experience. (We were not yet at the "ban assembler" point). He designed (eg: wrote the documentation to full draft). He followed=20 the new programming style guidelines from our SQA. He coded (hand=20 written - believe it or not). When his code was 100% written to spec,=20 he and a word processing girl began entering the source code (she worked = about 10x faster than him). Then, with 100% of the code entered, he began assembling the files. Then, through generated errors and in examining the machine code, he=20 discovered that his understanding of the register set and memory model=20 of the 8086 were completely wrong. So. He went back to his desk and began re-coding the entire thing in=20 assembler again. Hand written. (But this time handed them off to the=20 WP lady to enter the next day). The re-coding didn't take very long=20 since the overall design did not change at all. (This is really the=20 important part). He assembled. He corrected. He loaded the code onto the engineering=20 prototype h/w and found a few bugs. From the first loadable executable to an on-spec bug free system took=20 less than a working week (he worked 10 to 6. No more. No less. Ever). = He didn't use the nice ICE system we had. And ahead of schedule. This rare discipline in programming I've never seen since. The funny thing was he was a mathematician and didn't like computers=20 much - but had found a job as a programmer... --=20 "Big data can reduce anything to a single number, but you shouldn=92t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude." -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07