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: 103376,267eec8ad557a7d0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: 4GL code in a deliverable (was: ARIANE-5 Failure) Date: 1996/06/20 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 161417199 references: <834097751.22632.0@assen.demon.co.uk> <4pd540$rl2@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <4pd7qc$kp2@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <4pg9gj$ohs@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <31C0526C.2D99@lmtas.lmco.com> <31C57C5B.6C63@lmtas.lmco.com> <31C7B8D4.60AA@lmtas.lmco.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-06-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ken said " Would this "truth" also exist if the device used to generate the Ada code from the database was a human being, rather than a machine? It seems to me the consequence of this interpretation of Ada policy is that all requirements and design artifacts must be generated without the use of tools, else an Ada waiver is required!" nonsense, no one is saying that! What is being said is that the critical point is what level the code will be maintained at. If the code is to be maintained at the Ada source level, then it matters not a whit how it was developed, by humans, clever tools, or friendly martians. If on the other hand, the maintenance is to be done on the "original" source code (which may of course be in the form of a database and not a text in the normal sense -- that makes no difference), then indeed it is important to be sure that this source code is written in an appropritae language, which is properly supported, preferably standardized, and preferably avoids the danger of single sourced tools. Ken, do you really disagree with this? If so, I am surprised, and would appreciate you making the source of your disagreement clear!