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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,db9a11afb3da4240
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 102b75,501ec19d1d81daee
X-Google-Attributes: gid102b75,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-08 10:46:13 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!freenix!deine.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.sul.t-online.com!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail
From: Ingo Marks <adv@region-nord.de>
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Language support for  flexible handling of system-detected
 errors.
Followup-To: comp.arch
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 19:44:52 +0200
Organization: T-Online
Message-ID: <a8sktn$6d9$00$1@news.t-online.com>
References: <j8R78.48$Eh5.268@castor.casema.net> <a8f3tr$hu1$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <a8h129$cr6$02$1@news.t-online.com> <a8hqrv$r83$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <ba162549.0204080917.7da8068b@posting.google.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1018287863 00 6569 IKrMTRmSStAlLn 020408 17:44:23
X-Complaints-To: abuse@t-online.com
X-Sender: 340020534592-0001@t-dialin.net
User-Agent: KNode/0.6.1
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.arch:26580 comp.lang.ada:22240
Date: 2002-04-08T19:44:52+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Kevin Cline wrote:

> "Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote in
> message news:<a8hqrv$r83$1@nh.pace.co.uk>...
>> What makes you think that there are any 100% error free Ada compilers out
>> there? :-) Its impossible to prove that there are no errors in a compiler
>> or any other sufficiently complex piece of software. And yes, I've
>> encountered errors in every Ada compiler I've ever used. It might be the
>> case that Ada compilers - having run through validation - at least fully
>> implement the language and do so in a consistent way.
> 
> I wouldn't count on that either.  Validation suites may be incomplete,
> particularly for a very large language like Ada.
> 
> I found bugs in two validated Ada-83 compilers within a month after
> I started using them.

Ok I agree with you. But isn't it better to use a "validated" Ada compiler 
(although it cannot be proved to be 100% error free - I know Turings proof 
;-) than to use C++ compilers which are proven not to be 100% error free?

The very existence of validation mechanisms extends my confidence in Ada.
They may be envitably incomplete but that's better than nothing.