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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 109fba,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid109fba,gid115aec,gidf43e6,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsread.com!news-xfer.newsread.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.tiscali.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!news2.euro.net!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk!blueyonder!proxad.net!proxad.net!194.159.246.34.MISMATCH!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail From: "Paul E. Bennett" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada) Followup-To: comp.lang.ada Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:42:00 +0000 Organization: HIDECS Consultancy Message-ID: References: <4229bad9$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <422b6c80.1141685927@news.xs4all.nl> <1110151210.176045.168760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Reply-To: peb@amleth.demon.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: amleth.demon.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1110152441 784 80.176.76.193 (6 Mar 2005 23:40:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 23:40:41 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/0.6.1 Mail-Copies-To: mail2news@news.demon.co.uk Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8785 comp.lang.c++:44403 comp.realtime:1043 comp.software-eng:4576 Date: 2005-03-06T23:42:00+00:00 List-Id: jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net wrote: > Ada does not replace rigorous testing or code reviews. It supplements > them. Code reviews are extremely helpful. They also consume a lot of > time for the development team when they are done well. It is best to > remove as many silly errors from the code through automatic analysis > before exposing the code to developers for review. Thanks for that Jim. At least you seem to have been the first (assumed) Ada user that has admitted that the compiler is not the final arbiter. > I have never worked in an organization where code was judged ready for > review if it had not already produced a clean compile, with no warnings > or errors. When doing C code this meant also passing lint with no > errors or warnings. > > The Ada compiler effectively combines the error messages common to a > good C compiler with the error and warning messages common to a good > lint tool. When you get a clean compile from an Ada compiler you are > ready to expose your code to others for a code review. At least code which passes such a hurdle is in a more reasonable state than code which has not passed this threshold. I would also hope that you are not waiting for all the code to pass this hurdle but are compiling, reviewing and testing on a fairly continuous basis, submitting the code that passes compile, review and unit testing into the stock for integration and system testing. -- ******************************************************************** Paul E. Bennett .................... Forth based HIDECS Consultancy ..... Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972 Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095 Going Forth Safely ....EBA. http://www.electric-boat-association.org.uk/ ********************************************************************