Re: official recommendations of Ada

[hfrumblefoot@yahoo.com (Hambut)]

hfrumblefoot@yahoo.com (Hambut) wrote in message news:<fb75c450.0107171332.18376cd6@posting.google.com>...
> Hi,
> 
> It's been a dull evening tonight, so I thought I'd have a wade through
> the stuff I've got to hand to see what I can find with respect to Ada
> recommendations.  This may help - it might at least be a starting
> point.
> 

Another reference:

Extracted from "NASA Guidebook for Safety Critical Software - Analysis
and Development", NASA-GB-1740.13-96

"5.3.11.8 Programming Languages: Conclusions
A technique for evaluating safety-critical languages has been
described along with other
considerations for implementers and for choosing a vendor. The Ada
subset we have described
is suitable for safety-critical systems. Although a Pascal subset is
suitable it was not described
because Ada is rapidly becoming the most common language on new
projects. The choice of "C"
is to be avoided for our domain of interest because the language lacks
the features that permit
robust, reliable programming. The Ada subset minimizes the
insecurities that were discussed in
this entry by restricting the misuse of certain features. The
objective of the subset is to define an
unambiguous syntax so that the semantics can be used for proofs if
necessary. All Ada
implementations have defects and implementers of safety-critical
systems should review the
historical defect list to verify that the problems have been addressed
and fixed in a timely fashion"