Re: Ada Operating System

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

Its probably important to once again note that just because something is
written in C doesn't automatically mean that it *must* be buggy and
unreliable. The correct contention for Ada to make is that it is just harder
and more expensive to get there with C. Much like it is possible to produce
a correctly spelled document with a word processor that lacks a
spell-checker. You can get there quicker and with less cost by using one
that does - but without it, its still possible to correct all the spelling
errors.

Certainly time is a major ally in this. Something like gcc has been around
for a fairly long time (in computer years) and has had a large number of
eyes pouring over it. That tends to give one increased confidence in it even
if it *is* written in C.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message
news:8nH9bwDSZjm1@eisner.encompasserve.org...
>
> The dangerous tool might blow up in the environment where the tool
> is used -- the machine where the programmer is logged in.  To have
> something blow up in the environment where the completed program
> is used one does not need a dangerous tool, merely one that is not
> always correct.  You can do the same thing with a programmer who
> is not always correct.  Some choose to combat this with testing,
> formal inspection, design review, etc.  The possible failures in
> a program vastly outnumber those that might be due to using a
> "dangerous" tool.