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
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What is wrong with Ada?
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>
From: Markus E Leypold
 <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>
Organization: N/A
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:11:02 +0200
Message-ID: <n3r6qpea4p.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4Idu4tNXslkPG9TcC1AlG1W/n9M=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.204.82
X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1176401019 88.72.204.82 (12 Apr 2007 20:03:39 +0200)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.germany.com!news.unit0.net!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14999
Date: 2007-04-12T20:11:02+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"kevin  cline" <kevin.cline@gmail.com> writes:

> On Apr 11, 6:45 pm, Brian May <b...@snoopy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>> >>>>> "Jean-Pierre" == Jean-Pierre Rosen <r...@adalog.fr> writes:
>>
>>     Jean-Pierre> My experience is that recompiling (generally a single
>>     Jean-Pierre> body where you added the trace) is much faster than
>>     Jean-Pierre> starting the debugger, setting breakpoints, skipping
>>     Jean-Pierre> lots of unnecessary breaks, and so on.
>>
>> Assuming you notice that a bug exists. This is a big problem I have
>> had especially with most interpreted languages. The only way you can
>> be sure the code is bug free is too regularly test every possible
>> path, including different error conditions....
>
> 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.

Regards -- Markus