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: 2002-03-11 17:52:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!194.42.224.136!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!psiuk-p2!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, 11 Mar 2002 10:11:05 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3c77b476.322111671@news.cis.dfn.de> <3C88E0D1.89161C16@despammed.com> <3C8A3999.2000301@earthlink.net> <3C8B0191.3080705@mail.com> <3C8C3C4E.9030703@mail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1015859463 2574 136.170.200.133 (11 Mar 2002 15:11:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Mar 2002 15:11:03 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:21094 Date: 2002-03-11T15:11:03+00:00 List-Id: There's absolutely no getting around the fact that not all errors in programs are the kinds of things that can be caught by a compiler. Weak design, incorrect logic, failure to check all conditions, etc. are all things that no programming language can make up for with compile or runtime checks. I don't know that anyone here has ever contended that programming in Ada was going to result in error-free code. I think the reasoning goes something like this: You can make logic errors in *any* programming language. You can make a whole slew of simple programming errors that are catchable by a compiler (what should we name these? "Coding Errors"? Let's call them that for the time being.) So if Ada allows you to make Logic Errors, but not Coding Errors and C/C++ lets you make both Logic *and* Coding errors, then it stands to reason that in general, programs will have fewer errors if written in Ada. I always use a spell-checker as an analogy. No spell-checker will stop me from saying stupid things - but it can help me catch the more mundane errors in what I write & thus reduce the overall error rate. BTW: I've had metrics on projects that bear this out. Its not just theory, but something measurable. None of that means that an OS written in Ada is going to automagically be a better thing than Linux or Windows or anything else out on the market. It *can* be better, but it won't be just by virtue of the fact that it is written in Ada. I don't know that anyone here ever claimed it would be. 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/ "Hyman Rosen" wrote in message news:3C8C3C4E.9030703@mail.com... > > But this sort of thing isn't part of Ada, so if AdaOS will have it, > it will be because some decides to implement it. It then becomes > difficult to argue that the safety of AdaOS is due to the safety of > Ada. >