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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,aef4913dd6741a38 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!news.enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Preben Randhol Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ADA vs Java Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:23:15 +0200 Organization: PVV Message-ID: References: <87k6ko59eq.fsf@huldreheim.no-ip.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1119371016 55783 212.85.156.195 (21 Jun 2005 16:23:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:23:36 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-reply-to: <87k6ko59eq.fsf@huldreheim.no-ip.org> Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11530 Date: 2005-06-21T18:23:15+02:00 On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 11:47:09AM +0200, Leif Roar Moldskred wrote: > Preben Randhol writes: > > > So your saying: Use Java, C++ etc... for safety-critical applications. > > The reason for the warning NOT to do so is purly legal protection and it > > is not due to that the languages are not suited for the task? > > Actually, I think he is correct in his surmise. This is a boilerplate > warning that's slapped on to limit liability and it says more about > whether Sun consider safety critical system a target _market_ for Java > than whether they consider Java _suitable_ for such code. (Of course, > Java isn't suitable for safety critical systems, which is probably > part of the reason why Sun doesn't consider such a target market.) If Sun wanted to cover themselves legally they could have simply stated that you use the language and compiler at your own risk and that they cannot guarantee that the produced code is correct or acting as intended. The point that they especially writes that one should use it for situation X and Y means to me that they do think their product IS NOT suitable to be use in situation X and Y. My point is simply: 1. They don't want people to use the compiler/language for X and Y 2. They don't want lawsuits due to bugs in compiler/language generally > Like with "No user serviceable parts inside" and similar warning > labels, the issue is what the provider guarantees for their product, > and not really what the product is. "No user serviceable parts inside" > doesn't actually mean there isn't any parts you can't service yourself > (there might or there might not be.) Rather, it means "We have not > designed this product for you to service the parts yourself; so if you > try, don't come crying to us if you break something." The analogy doesn't hold in my opinion. The warning would have to be "Don't use this equipment to do X and Y" to be analogous with the above :-) -- Preben Randhol -------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/Ada95 -- �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�