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: 103376,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!wns13feed!worldnet.att.net!12.120.4.37!attcg2!ip.att.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada)
Followup-To: comp.lang.ada
Date: 6 Mar 2005 20:01:10 -0600
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <jbbzllVvKaVX@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <4229bad9$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>
 <422b6c80.1141685927@news.xs4all.nl>
 <l4MWd.103362$Vf.3977593@news000.worldonline.dk>
 <1110151210.176045.168760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
 <d0g4dp$og$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1110160860 9817 192.135.80.34 (7 Mar 2005
 02:01:00 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 02:01:00 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8790
Date: 2005-03-06T20:01:10-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <d0g4dp$og$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, "Paul E. Bennett" <peb@amleth.demon.co.uk> writes:
> jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> 
>> Ada does not replace rigorous testing or code reviews. It supplements
>> them. Code reviews are extremely helpful. They also consume a lot of
>> time for the development team when they are done well. It is best to
>> remove as many silly errors from the code through automatic analysis
>> before exposing the code to developers for review.
> 
> Thanks for that Jim. At least you seem to have been the first (assumed) 
> Ada user that has admitted that the compiler is not the final arbiter.

Assuming is a bad idea.

Typically the Ada compiler is the second arbiter (the first being
the programmer who types something into the editor).  You will find
that Ada programmers don't discuss subsequent steps that much since
they are a given.  The only regard in which they should differ from
C* reviews should be a lower number of trivial bugs remaining (with
more time available for considering serious defects).