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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ad06d2d7cb045687
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.222.71 with SMTP id qk7mr12692994pbc.1.1328581767890;
        Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:29:27 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni268892pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!eweka.nl!lightspeed.eweka.nl!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BrianG <me@null.email>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Silly and stupid post-condition or not ?
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:29:23 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <jgq2a6$f15$1@dont-email.me>
References: <op.v8w6ptk5ule2fv@douda-yannick>
	<82wr86fzos.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
	<5af407fc-2868-44ca-84d2-c51a2a64104d@o4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
	<82k445fu9n.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <jgfjc4$u4b$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <m262focp3y.fsf@pushface.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:29:27 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="TtuQlFl1tCpi+XZRA9iuwg";
	logging-data="15397"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+xSKKF4sjKj4gLTLHhdu6g"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Thunderbird/3.1.16
In-Reply-To: <m262focp3y.fsf@pushface.org>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hO+gtV4AYVxrdjrliModt8cYA9s=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-02-06T21:29:23-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 02/03/2012 03:12 AM, Simon Wright wrote:
> "Randy Brukardt"<randy@rrsoftware.com>  writes:
>
>> I think that things like SPARC can actually be harmful, as they focus
>> attention on the wrong things. There is a lot that can be proved about
>> dynamic constructs in Ada (far more than in other most languages), and
>> it is unfortunate that instead of taking advantage of this (and making
>> widely usable results), most of effort has been on proving the Fortran
>> 66 subset of Ada. (I do see signs that this is changing, finally, but
>> I think a lot of the work should have been done years ago.)
>
> (SPARK)
>
> Strong agreement here. I don't think I'd have started on any of my own
> projects if I'd had to use SPARK. Businesses will, iff they're in an
> area where the purchaser requires it (avionics, for example). Does
> anywone know what software standards Toyota use? MISRA C?
According to Embedded Systems Design (I'd have to find the ref's), they 
use none - they farm out the job.

-- 
---
BrianG
000
@[Google's email domain]
.com