From: dale@cs.rmit.edu.au (Dale Stanbrough)
Subject: Re: Ada --> C Translation, was: Win CE target
Date: 1998/10/11
Date: 1998-10-11T06:45:43+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dale-1110981647250001@dale.ppp.cs.rmit.edu.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 6vp23h$hc3$1@jupiter.cs.uml.edu
Dr Amirez wrote:
"Well, any software needs testing. Much of this is the fault of UNIX
vendors. I understand the bugs got reported times after times but
never got fixed. I can only think of one reason: patching one thing
will only make another problem emerge. That's sad. But then the time
for UNIX has passed, investing into fixing UNIX bugs isn't productive.
Then again, how many times does the ACM get a chance to test an OS
in Ada? Theoretically such an OS will be better than UNIX/NT/LINUX, but
you never know."
Um, they weren't part of the OS, I was talking about the _Utilities_ such
as vi, cat, etc. that come with it. The article commented on the fact that
these programs had a very long history of no problems, yet were still
vunerable to failure. An Ada program could well have the same faults,
but given the inclusion of array bounds checking, and numerous other
checks these would have either been picked up earlier, or would have
resulted in a constraint_error exception - which I view as being
better than a core dump. At least with a constraint error you can be
reasonably assured that no other data has been corrupted and saved
unwittingly due to a program running on.
I don't understand why you started talking about OS developement in
Ada. You seem to have a very strange way of making a point. I certainly
don't understand what you are on about.
"How about I hate guessing. I will wait for a an Ada OS to come along.
Linux is (used to be anyway ) a one man project. Surely an OS can't be that
hard to build."
Ok you may hate guessing, but what i asked was a rhetorical question, so
it didn't need an answer.
"Please leave AT&T out of this. They contribute greatly
to the Computer Sci community. Without them I would still be working
on some obscure system written in a mixture of FORTRAN, PL1 and assembly."
Maybe they do, but you were the one who claimed that you can't write
system software with facilities that are system dependent, which is
exactly what AT&T have done. I really don't understand what you are
on about, and I suspect that continuing this discussion is just a waste
of time.
Good Bye.
Dale
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1998-10-11 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1998-09-20 0:00 Win CE target William A Whitaker
1998-09-20 0:00 ` dewarr
1998-09-20 0:00 ` dewarr
1998-09-20 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1998-09-21 0:00 ` dennison
1998-09-21 0:00 ` dewarr
1998-09-28 0:00 ` Ada --> C Translation, was: " Stefan Helfert
1998-09-29 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1998-09-30 0:00 ` dewarr
1998-09-29 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1998-10-10 0:00 ` Dr Amirez
1998-10-11 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough
1998-10-10 0:00 ` Dr Amirez
1998-10-11 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough [this message]
1998-10-11 0:00 ` Dr Amirez
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1998-10-13 0:00 ` dennison
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Niklas Holsti
1998-10-12 0:00 ` dennison
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1998-10-14 0:00 ` dewarr
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Andi Kleen
1998-10-12 0:00 ` PC
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Operating System in Ada (was Ada --> C Translation) Larry Kilgallen
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Chris Morgan
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough
1998-10-14 0:00 ` dewarr
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Tom Moran
1998-10-12 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-10-13 0:00 ` dennison
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1998-10-12 0:00 ` dennison
1998-10-21 0:00 ` Van Snyder
1998-10-22 0:00 ` Tom Moran
1998-10-13 0:00 ` Ada --> C Translation, was: Win CE target Robert I. Eachus
1998-10-14 0:00 ` Samuel Mize
1998-10-16 0:00 ` Tasking/blocking system calls (was: Ada --> C Translation) Mats Weber
1998-09-23 0:00 ` Win CE target falis
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox