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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,76da32d8c4934801 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dale@cs.rmit.edu.au (Dale Stanbrough) Subject: Re: Ada --> C Translation, was: Win CE target Date: 1998/10/11 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 399867760 References: <6vobnk$vt9$1@jupiter.cs.uml.edu> <6vp23h$hc3$1@jupiter.cs.uml.edu> X-Complaints-To: abuse@cs.rmit.edu.au X-Trace: emu.cs.rmit.edu.au 908088343 18744 131.170.27.23 (11 Oct 1998 06:45:43 GMT) Organization: RMIT NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Oct 1998 06:45:43 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-10-11T06:45:43+00:00 List-Id: 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