Re: Direct Quote from the RM

[anon@anon.org (anon)]

For Randy Brukardt.

You did not need to post three copies of you post! I read the first one.

Since, you want to sub-divide the RM that's fine. From 1.1.2 using (2 
and 3) states the core starts in Section 1 .. 13. So using 
"Section 1 General" paragraph 1.

Quote!

    1   Ada is a programming language designed to support the 
        construction of long-lived, highly reliable software systems.  
        The language includes facilities to define packages of related 
        types, objects, and operations.  The packages may be 
        parameterized and the types may be extended to support the
        construction of libraries of reusable, adaptable software 
        components.  The operations may be implemented as subprograms 
        using conventional sequential control structures, or as entries 
        that include synchronization of concurrent threads of control as 
        part of their invocation.  The language treats modularity in the 
        physical sense as well, with a facility to support separate
        compilation.

Unquote!

Which echoes the "Design Goals" with less detail. You step in that one. 
But to extend this concept (answer) every paragraph under the Headings
"Implementation Requirements", "Implementation Permissions", 
"Implementation Advice" and "NOTES" strengthen the concept of creating 
"HIGH INTEGRITY and HIGH RELIABLE" software.

Note: The one and only and I do mean ONLY language that states in its 
design and goal sections it was construct for high reliable and high 
integrity software is Ada.  Every language has a specific purpose, and Ada 
purpose is for creating efficiency and integrity software. Just like COBOL 
was created as a "COmmon Business-Oriented Language" and FORTRAN 
was created as a "FORmula TRANslation" language.  


In <fhta34$fv9$1@jacob-sparre.dk>, "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
>"anon" <anon@anon.org> wrote in message
>news:mYI%i.27882$if6.6495@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Intro or section 0 between 150 .. 200 lines in the RM for Ada 95!
>>
>> (long quote omitted).
>
>Ah, yes, the motherhood section. I was asking you to provide a *normative*
>reference (one that is actually binding on users/implementers), which the
>introduction is surely not such a section. (See the definition of
>"normative" in 1.1.2.)
>
>The introduction is just a list of "good" properties which really doesn't
>mean that much and has no bearing on the requirements for implementations
>and users. Pretty much every programming language has a version of these
>same goals. After all, can you imagine a programming language saying that it
>was designed to make unreliable programs with no regard to efficiency? Who'd
>use that?
>
>Others have explained the difference between properties of the language and
>properties of the toolset, so I won't spend more time on that.
>
>                                  Randy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Quote
>>
>>     Design Goals
>>
>>     6   Ada was originally designed with three overriding concerns:
>>         program reliability and maintenance, programming as a human
>>         activity, and efficiency. This revision to the language was
>>         designed to provide greater flexibility and extensibility,
>>         additional control over storage management and synchronization,
>>         and standardized packages oriented toward supporting important
>>         application areas, while at the same time retaining the original
>>         emphasis on reliability, maintainability, and efficiency.
>>
>>     7   The need for languages that promote reliability and simplify
>>         maintenance is well established.  Hence emphasis was placed
>>         on program readability over ease of writing.  For example, the
>>         rules of the language require that program variables be explicitly
>>         declared and that their type be specified.  Since the type of a
>>         variable is invariant, compilers can ensure that operations on
>>         variables are compatible with the properties intended for objects
>>         of the type.  Furthermore, error-prone notations have been
>avoided,
>>         and the syntax of the language avoids the use of encoded forms in
>>         favor of more English-like constructs.  Finally, the language
>offers
>>         support for separate compilation of program units in a way that
>>         facilitates program development and maintenance, and which
>>         provides the same degree of checking between units as within a
>>         unit.
>>
>>     8   Concern for the human programmer was also stressed during the
>>         design. Above all, an attempt was made to keep to a relatively
>>         small number of underlying concepts integrated in a consistent
>>         and systematic way while continuing to avoid the pitfalls of
>>         excessive involution.  The design especially aims to provide
>>         language constructs that correspond intuitively to the normal
>>         expectations of users.
>>
>>     9   Like many other human activities, the development of programs
>>         is becoming ever more decentralized and distributed.
>Consequently,
>>         the ability to assemble a program from independently produced
>>         software components continues to be a central idea in the design.
>>         The concepts of packages, of private types, and of generic units
>>         are directly related to this idea, which has ramifications in many
>>         other aspects of the language.  An allied concern is the
>maintenance
>>         of programs to match changing requirements; type extension and the
>>         hierarchical library enable a program to be modified while
>minimizing
>>         disturbance to existing tested and trusted components.
>>
>>   10   No language can avoid the problem of efficiency.  Languages that
>>         require over-elaborate compilers, or that lead to the inefficient
>use
>>         of storage or execution time, force these inefficiencies on all
>>         machines and on all programs.  Every construct of the language was
>>         examined in the light of present implementation techniques.  Any
>>         proposed construct whose implementation was unclear or that
>>         required excessive machine resources was rejected.
>>
>> Unquote!
>>
>> Which any programmer should take to mean that they should write High
>> Integrity and Efficient code to maintain the Ada Design Goals. And that
>> just one of many parts of the manual that address these type of concerns.
>>
>> Randy Brukardt may have writing one or more sections but as the list
>> of authors states he was not alone. So, unless he wrote the intro he
>> could of skipped that section. Just like most people who read the RM,
>> they skip parts that does not deal with writing code. I personally have
>> no problems that Randy Brukardt writing part(s) of the RM unless he
>> wrote that intro. In that case, telling me to re-read it is just wrong.
>>
>
>