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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Xref: utzoo comp.lang.ada:3303 comp.lang.c:26221 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!ucsd!nosc!spectra!optis31!lawhorn From: lawhorn@optis31.uucp (Jeff Lawhorn) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: problems/risks due to programming language Message-ID: Date: 22 Feb 90 20:48:29 GMT References: <5432@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <8103@hubcap.clemson.edu> <10811@june.cs.washington.edu> Sender: lawhorn@optis31.UUCP Reply-To: lawhorn@opti.uucp Followup-To: comp.lang.ada Distribution: comp In-reply-to: machaffi@fred.cs.washington.edu's message of 22 Feb 90 05:39:13 GMT List-Id: It seems to me that if the program in question had been thoroughly tested it would not matter if it had been written in C or Ada or Pascal or anything else. The bug would have been found, and AT&T's network would not have been knocked off the air. In **EVERY** language it is possible to write valid code that does not do what the programmer wants. This is why every possible code path should be tested before it is placed into a production system. Let's hope that AT&T didn't learn not to use C or Ada or whatever, but that they learned to test their software better before using it in a production system. -- Jeff Lawhorn lawhorn@opti.uucp opti!lawhorn@berick.uucp ucsd!sdsu!berick!opti!lawhorn