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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,23c0de5a42cf667e
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: =?iso-8859-15?Q?Yannick_Duch=EAne_=28Hibou57=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT packages in Linux distributions
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 21:21:12 +0200
Organization: Ada At Home
Message-ID: <op.vcj2pmooxmjfy8@garhos>
References: <j5e1x31qvn1b$.11ywrjmshtauz$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <87mxw9x7no.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <t8liq7w6ffnm$.19yq5hkq6tdto$.dlg@40tude.net> <op.vcgi9oqzule2fv@garhos>
 <w1q9e75h9kzi.4p81vh3kannn$.dlg@40tude.net> <op.vch6dsqmxmjfy8@garhos>
 <16bz9kvbqa8y9$.155ntpwpwl29d.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4be97bea$0$2966$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> <op.vcjtnsp5xmjfy8@garhos>
 <quqkqeas8pu2$.1w5pelct29juv.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: EFpv4lnpRyjbMhM0po550g.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.53 (Win32)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:11525
Date: 2010-05-11T21:21:12+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Tue, 11 May 2010 18:45:14 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  =

<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a =E9crit:
> A proof of correctness cannot be run-time. Incorrectness need no proof=
.
I guess you will not like it, however, here is my disclaimer : there may=
  =

be some levels of correctness.

A well written Eiffel application is more near to be correct than let sa=
y  =

an XXXXX (I prefer to not give any names) one.
Yes, it will not be 100% logically-proven. That said, isn't let say 40% =
 =

trustable better than 0% or even less ?

Even SPARK has different levels of checking (at least two ones)

Obviously, Eiffel is not a theorem prover, while it still comes with a  =

philosophy.

P.S. Don't be afraid, you next plane or train will not be Eiffel powered=
  =

anyway, there is no need to be afraid about its lacks, compared to SPARK=
,  =

which is not a tiny thing.

-- =

pragma Asset ? Is that true ? Waaww... great