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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,93a8020cc980d113
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.aset.psu.edu!not-for-mail
From: "Bob Spooner" <rls19@psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What is wrong with Ada?
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:25:09 -0400
Organization: Penn State University, Center for Academic Computing
Message-ID: <f00106$tqm$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>
References: <1176150704.130880.248080@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
 <zyBSh.44138$oV.14776@attbi_s21> <461B52A6.20102@obry.net>
 <awirc4gv13.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <461BA892.3090002@obry.net>
 <yeabxgnsrj.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <82dgve.spf.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <1176226291.589741.257600@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
 <4eaive.6p9.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <sa4ps6apjb7.fsf@margay.local>
 <1176396382.586729.195490@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
 <n3r6qpea4p.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nat4.arl.psu.edu
X-Trace: f04n12.cac.psu.edu 1176733510 30550 128.118.40.79 (16 Apr 2007
 14:25:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@f04n12.cac.psu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:25:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15059
Date: 2007-04-16T10:25:09-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"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