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: f849b,b8d52151b7b306d2
X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a00006d3c4735d70
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-23 12:33:15 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!chcgil2-snh1.gtei.net!news.bbnplanet.com!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems
Date: 23 Dec 2003 14:33:11 -0600
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <qtANfKdYh06j@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <3fe00b82.90228601@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3FE026A8.3CD6A3A@yahoo.com>
 <x0%Db.16$_l6.25998@news.uswest.net>
 <3bf1uvg2ntadvahfud2rg6ujk24sora6gr@4ax.com>
 <2u3auvogde8ktotlaq0ldiaska3g416gus@4ax.com> <bs62ph$giu$1@newshost.mot.com>
 <20619edc.0312221020.3fd1b4ee@posting.google.com>
 <b5feuv06s2nmpakq0o1b7v0kpd450v3eli@4ax.com>
 <20619edc.0312222106.3b369547@posting.google.com>
 <eslguvk1fm9bbjs2hak84p2i2in77gv62d@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1072211554 12834 192.135.80.34 (23 Dec 2003
 20:32:34 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 20:32:34 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.arch.embedded:6030 comp.lang.ada:3766
Date: 2003-12-23T14:33:11-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <eslguvk1fm9bbjs2hak84p2i2in77gv62d@4ax.com>, Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net> writes:

> I think I have to concede that, on the average, code quality can be
> better with a well-chosen subset of a higher-level language other than
> C. However, it's still my opinion that "average" programmers, as
> described in these studies, shouldn't be writing safety-critical code.

Ah, but do you have a way of preventing that ?

(Not just on systems you build, but on those to which you entrust your
own safety.)

> Since a large part of my work is maintenance of legacy systems, I'll
> readily agree that the error rate I encounter is horrible. I'll also
> claim that error rates of programs I've completely reworked are very
> low.

One of the big flaws in replacing a software system outright is to
ignore the fact that requirement capture has been inadequate.