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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,85034d1ac78a66eb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-25 16:09:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news-x2.support.nl!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada Operating System Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:05:55 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <5Tzc8.111999$H37.15018616@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com> <3C73F480.5010806@mail.com> <5ee5b646.0202221911.3b96252a@posting.google.com> <8nH9bwDSZjm1@eisner.encompasserve.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1014645956 21042 136.170.200.133 (25 Feb 2002 14:05:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Feb 2002 14:05:56 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20413 Date: 2002-02-25T14:05:56+00:00 List-Id: 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" 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.