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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a00006d3c4735d70
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: f849b,b8d52151b7b306d2
X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-26 14:19:42 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!phaedsys.demon.co.uk!chris
From: Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 22:10:30 +0000
Organization: Phaedrus Systems
Message-ID: <p$OIcVFWHL7$EA6t@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>
References: <3fe00b82.90228601@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3FE026A8.3CD6A3A@yahoo.com>
 <$km9afA3DB7$EAYO@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>
 <bcEFNEK9esyI@eisner.encompasserve.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: phaedsys.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1072477181 12570 80.176.226.26 (26 Dec 2003 22:19:41
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 22:19:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 M <7y9ouFdz6gbBVVTek6rkWKl0do>
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.arch.embedded:6133 comp.lang.ada:3829
Date: 2003-12-26T22:10:30+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <bcEFNEK9esyI@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Larry Kilgallen
<Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> writes
>In article <$km9afA3DB7$EAYO@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills 
><chris@phaedsys.org> writes:
>> In article <3fea086c.110513550@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Dave Hansen
>> <iddw@hotmail.com> writes
>
>>>But C can be, umm, subtle, and static checking tools (particularly
>>>Lint) are IMHO _required_.  Sadly, they're not often used.
>> 
>> There is NO EXCUSE for not using a static analyser on C.
>
>Certainly there is an excuse -- it is not enforced by the compiler.
>
>That is quite different from the situation with Ada.

So it all has to be enforced by the compiler?

The main difference between C and ADa is that the average ADA programmer
is in a safety critical environment. The average C programmer is not. 

If C program development was *normally* taught as though it was going to
be used in a safety critical environment I think things would change. 



/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England    /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org       www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/