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: 103376,5412c98a3943e746
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.231.165 with SMTP id th5mr379602pbc.1.1330104981706;
        Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:36:21 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 h9ni4488pbe.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:36:21 -0600
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:36:21 -0500
From: "Peter C. Chapin" <PChapin@vtc.vsc.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Verified compilers?
References: <op.v91cleyiule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <078983c8-845c-41d3-99e1-08968e9a1a9a@q12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <078983c8-845c-41d3-99e1-08968e9a1a9a@q12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <qpOdnfHApYAIV9rS4p2dnAA@giganews.com>
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: 
 sv3-23xXsCwtFW43RZ2LlBFSanha5rPOpyl2ZfdsYiCwFbGUCrUkvNwmy+2rI+8xxXu4cdpD9vP8SHpQiN2!vOnKVDNnsKeDjVOqPiz5dfOvPABCNsqwTCjZcEslUZvT2xZo/lWxiXLCRwFuCV8=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2020
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-02-24T12:36:21-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2012-02-23 20:41, Shark8 wrote:

> I think the sentence shows a bit of solipsistic thinking on the part
> of the writer's view of languages; as everyone on this thread ought to
> know Ada's had verified compilers since its first implementations. (I
> am using 'verified' and 'certified' rather interchangeably here, if
> that's not the case though I'd like to hear what exactly the
> difference is.)

To me "verified" suggests formal proof. When I hear "verified compiler" 
I assume we are talking about a compiler that has been proven 
(mathematically) to implement the source language correctly. On the 
other hand a "certified compiler" is one, to my mind, that has passed 
some kind of official certification suite. The ideas are independent but 
both are useful.

Peter