Re: What is wrong with Ada?

["Bob Spooner" <rls19@psu.edu>]

"Markus E Leypold" 
<development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> wrote in 
message news:n3r6qpea4p.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de...
>
> "kevin  cline" <kevin.cline@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Are you claiming that use of Ada makes it safe to release code that
>> has never been tested?
>
> Actually -- why not? In my experience spuriously tested Ada code
> usually has the quality of extensively tested C code. Perhaps my cases
> where not really comparable, but it is astonishing how much Ada code
> is "just right" if it compiles.
>
> Of course we're not talking about embedded programs / control systems
> of whatever kind here. And those should probably better verified
> and/or extenseively formally reviewd instead of only tested.
>
> Remember: Formal review is a (proven) much better QA tool than
> testing.
>
This has been my experience as well. When I was first learning Ada, back 
around 1986 or so, I was astonished at the percentage of programs I wrote 
which, once I had a clean compile, did _exactly_ what I expected. It's borne 
out as well in the form those "stump the experts" sessions take. With C type 
languages, the question is: "What does this do?" With Ada, the question is: 
"Will this compile?"

Bob