Re: Have the Itanium critics all been proven wrong?

[Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>]

On 12-08-22 12:29 , Michael S wrote:
>
> So let's do not call it "two languages". Let's talk about "full Ada"
> and "checked Ada" where "checked Ada" is a subset in which "it is not
> possible to clobber arbitrary memory locations". Hopefully  "checked
> Ada" is still much closer in # features to the "full Ada" than to
> SPARK.
> 
 ...
>>> Q.
>>> Do people actually use the "second" Ada language

(i.e. "checked Ada")

>>> for really big and
>>> really complex application programs?
>>
>> It is certainly possible. For example, the main SPARK tools are written
>> in SPARK.
> 
> Well, so let's define "really big and really complex application
> programs" (RBaRCAP) as something that not only executes complex
> processing, but also handles multiple tightly or loosely related
> inputs for hours/days/weeks/months either as long-running service or
> as an interactive [GUI] application.
> Then compilers or lint-like tools are not RBaRCAP.

I understand. Another term, currently popular, is "enterprise applications".

I have no personal knowledge of terrestrial RBaRCAPs. I have experience
of on-board SW in spacecraft, which may not qualify as "really big",
except in terms of the ratio of program size to available memory size,
but it is certainly complex and handles many inputs as a long-running
service. I've never used Unchecked_Deallocation in such programs, and
Unchecked_Conversion only for safe conversions.

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
      .      @       .