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: 103376,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 109fba,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid109fba,gid115aec,gidf43e6,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:45:56 -0600 From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng References: <1110266099.441421.179290@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1110332933.587110.260410@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1110390097.532139.43430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <422f3808$0$30165$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be> <1110409958.685759.249420@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <15SdnYvJ0_x3Vq3fRVn-3Q@megapath.net> <1110522060.091940.178510@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1110556346.841594.212520@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <4952804.Myubg7stsI@linux1.krischik.com> <1110739276.774946.103020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1110858931.523773.124170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1110895220.422372.189820@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1111015648.669832.140620@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:48:18 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4927.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38 X-Trace: sv3-9W8CeX0fjEe7IcqzQ62xKxRj7lbwpEfBwhyosXS8jhCPnh3+k7F2z6FZRyQIYWZb2AfXy4m/iQ1ejK8!y6+hiwIgIRPi4Aw/F79cQGEkdUVALoTQRZcBzOuVKG7eABLHgDMNCp0XnMYyZUtoOOigSNJvWETA X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net 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: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9532 comp.lang.c++:46106 comp.realtime:1547 comp.software-eng:5132 Date: 2005-03-16T21:48:18-06:00 List-Id: "Jerry Coffin" wrote in message news:1111015648.669832.140620@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... ... > So, the question is not one of whether you exist -- but of whether you > and/or your testing should be trusted. In my view, your own posts have > thrown this into considerable doubt (at best). The reason Jerry comes to this conclusion is based on a single summary statement from a 5 year-old summary article; he never looks at the testing procedures or the ISO standard that governs those procedures. Moreover, he seems to claim reasons for this conclusion that are clearly stated in the article (at least I hope they're clear; I'm not that great a writer...). I'm always amazed at the lengths that some opponents of Ada will go in order to discredit any advantage of the language. Is this because they feel threatened by the language? (I can't imagine why.) Or they have a deep seated hatred of things that start with 'A'? I don't know. You can't please (or even reason with) all of the people all of the time. Anyway, for the benefit.of anyone else still reading this thread, I'll explain how the testing is done, and why it can be trusted. (Whether such testing has value in any case is another issue that could be argued forever, but that's not the question.) The testing process is an instantiation of the ISO testing standard (ISO/IEC 18009). The detailed procedures that are followed are available on the AdaIC website, along with the test suite itself. They were developed from the preexisting AJPO procedures with the oversight of a panel of users, laboratories, and vendors. Actual testing is done by testing laboratories (ACALs). These have to be independent of any Ada vendor. Vendors contract directly with the laboratories for testing; this part of the process is unchanged from when AJPO and NIST ran it. The ACAA is the oversight agency. We provide maintenance to the test suite, and judge disputes between the vendors and the testing labs. We also spot check the laboratories work to insure that they have followed the procedures. This is the role that previously was handled by AJPO (in an office called the AVO). The only real difference (other than the ISO standard, which codified the rules that AJPO had followed) is that the ACAA is funded in part by the ARA. The ACAA is primarily funded by certificate fees, but the ARA does make up any shortfall. The ARA is an association of Ada product vendors (not just compiler vendors). While there is a potential conflict of interest, it is irrelevant in practice for three reasons: (1) The ACAA is only a judge. Moreover, technical issues are resolved by discussion with a panel of Ada experts; if that is not satisfactory, the ruling can be appealed to the ARG (the Ada standard maintenance group within the Ada working group of ISO/IEC SC22 WG9). At most, the ACAA can influence this process, not decide it. (2) ARA includes most of the major Ada vendors. It would be hard to have an conformity issue that they all would agree on that would not also be in the interest of all Ada vendors. (3) The testing in question is conformity assessment. It is not about testing usability in any way, so it has little to do with the factors on which vendors compete. The testing is designed to provide a yes/no answer (well, it's a little more nuanced than that) as to whether a compiler is compliant. There isn't a lot of leeway in this process for outside influence. While I could imagine an outcome from this process that would favor Ada vendors over Ada users, that would seem to be counter-productive (why hurt your customers?). Moreover, as the testing is about conformity and not usability, most issues that matter to users don't even fall under the testing umbrella. Of course, the main question (Does this compiler properly implement the Ada Standard?) is of significant interest to users, particularly those that will need to use more than one compiler over the life of their project. As to whether someone could cheat in the process, I would say it would not be the least bit hard. The results of the tests are always handled by the vendors before the testers see them, so there is always the possibility of games. There is nothing new about this possibility (I know or suspect several cases where results were falsied under the AJPO testing). I think it actually would be harder now, because (1) I've been on the other side of the fence, so I have some idea of what to look for; and (2) we require more information in the test report than AJPO did. We also post the test reports publically, so anyone can check on them. (The only AJPO test reports I ever saw, before I was sent several cartons of old AVO material, were the ones we had done.) We even have a public test results dispute procedure (which thankfully never has been used), its unclear if AJPO even had one. In any event, the real benefit is that there is a *single* conformity test suite that *all* Ada vendors use for testing. That means that there can be no confusion about what has and has not been tested. Most differences between Ada compilers (beyond those allowed by the Standard) are those that come from untested combinations of Ada features. Randy Brukardt