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,c9d5fc258548b22a X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: How do I write directly to a memory address? Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <67063a5b-f588-45ea-bf22-ca4ba0196ee6@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <4d4ff70e$0$6886$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <737a6396-72bd-4a1e-8895-7d50f287960e@d28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <4d5008a5$0$6879$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <4d5031fe$0$6765$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <1f229967-d3cf-42b6-8087-c97ee08652f3@i40g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <4d51169e$0$7657$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <4d51905c$0$19486$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <36212a7b-deab-45d9-ac45-aa29cd90c7bc@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <4d51a7bb$0$19486$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <4d52b489$0$19486$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <9a8njlwvey1p.1a96yvvgdf6yu.dlg@40tude.net> <4d52c5e5$0$19486$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 18:49:51 +0100 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Date: 09 Feb 2011 18:49:47 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: bff76d82.newsspool2.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=OA03ba3VlFd>jlK2>IgHGdA9EHlD;3Ycb4Fo<]lROoRa8kF On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 11:48:07 -0500, Hyman Rosen wrote: > On 2/9/2011 11:15 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> It is theoretically possible to say if a program is correct > > No it's not, because the statement of correctness is equivalent to > the program itself; you simply push the potential error out one level. Right. It is pushed to the level of requirements. > How do I know that your assertion as to the correctness of the > program accurately models what the program should do? I don't need to know it. There is nothing beyond the requirements. How do you know that a car is for driving and not for killing pedestrians? >> Even if the damage inflicted by a program is less than one by a >> malfunctioned hardware there is a psychological difference. People do not >> accept preventable or deliberate damages. E.g. it is OK for thousands to >> die in car accidents, but intolerable when a single person die in gun >> shooting. > > Your example is false; it is not intolerable when a single person > dies in a gun shooting. Here in the U.S. we do not take away guns > from the public even though some of its members use them to murder. Hmm, isn't murder a criminal offence in the US? And look there is a huge crowd of leftists lobbying for taking guns away. The same people are silent about cars! They could at least require that cars were in state property. No? Cars kill thousands, but these are acceptable deaths. > And in fact, people treat computer programs as they do other more > physical objects. Not really. Legally you don't even own most of the programs you are using. > They work around problems, they upgrade to better > versions, and they complain. They were educated by MS and others. This does not mean that the current way is sustainable. Most people in c.l.a. believe that it is not. Yes this is in disagreement with the vast majority of people, professionals included. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de