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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,78a1af350f4cf4b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Win2000 has 63,000 'defects' Date: 2000/02/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 586314168 References: <38A989B7.2D4D6B56@maths.unine.ch> <2000Feb15.143333.1@eisner> <2000Feb15.155800.1@eisner> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 950655654 221 bpr@206.184.139.136 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-02-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 15 Feb 2000, Hyman Rosen wrote: > kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes: > > Why must you be so argumentative ? > > I know how to spell the words "I have proof", and would have done so > > if that were the case. > > You're probably right. I was just defending the honor of > "my favorite language" :-) I'm surprised that you even have a favorite. ;-) > It would be interesting to see a defect analysis similar to that > Lucent study (which was for old pre-ANSI C code) done for a large Ada > project, to see what kinds of bugs show up there. That would indeed be interesting. It would also be interesting to find out roughly what fraction of the installed base of C code is "new ISO C" rather than bad old K&R. My experience is that a lot of brand new C code out there is still pre-ANSI, meaning roughly "prototype free". Similarly, I'd like to find out what fraction of C++ code is truly ISO C++ compliant. When I was using C++ a lot (mid 90's) it seemed that no two compilers would handle the same subset of templates. It would have helped C++ to have an Ada like test suite so that there would be some minimal level of agreement. -- Brian