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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,66752102482bbdca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen Subject: Re: Required Metrics Date: 2000/05/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 620558647 Sender: ohk@gong2.clustra.com References: <5DDO4.2237$wb7.194854@news.flash.net> <8ek4ea$5ta$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <390DC8AD.59B5EBEE@averstar.com> <8ep0k3$jlr$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8es5fv$4ov$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <_HnQ4.7884$wb7.550012@news.flash.net> <8eukm0$ssm$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <24VQ4.8453$wb7.646902@news.flash.net> <8f279n$me2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no X-Trace: news.telia.no 957770786 195.204.160.194 (Mon, 08 May 2000 09:26:26 CEST) Organization: Telia Internet Public Access NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 09:26:26 CEST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar writes: > In article <24VQ4.8453$wb7.646902@news.flash.net>, > "Ken Garlington" wrote: > > By the way, while writing up a bug report, I found this in the > gnatinfo.txt > > file... > > > > "The Documentation for GNAT consists of two manuals, the GNAT > User's Guide > > and the GNAT Reference Manual. These are available in a number > of formats > > (ASCII, HTML, PostScript and info) and are bundled as a > separate > > documentation > > distribution and can be found at the same places as the GNAT > binary and > > source distributions." > > > > ...and I just had to laugh! > > > By the way, the documentation for GNAT very definitely > includes the Ada Reference Manual -- but perhaps that's a > surprise to Ken too ... hard to tell! > > This thread is quite instructive. > > I think the entire problem is that in the realm of software > engineering, you define a set of "requirements", and then > you can tell whether you have done a good job of implementing > the software by seeing if it meets these requirements. > > It is, I guess, quite understandable, if quite wrong, for people > to make the mistake of thinking that a language definition is > like such a requirements document, and that you will be able > to tell if a vendor has done a good job of writing an Ada > compiler by seeing if it has met these requirements. > > That's quite wrong of course, the defining language document > is not a set of requirements in this sense at all. Well more > properly it is a small part of the requirements. Left out > entirely are issues of performance, reliability, efficiency, > usability, maintainability etc etc. But it *is* the definition of the language. In that case, it is the *minimum* requirement if you want a complete implementation. > > By the way Ken, you questioned me saying that you were one of > the people arguing for inclusion of these ill-defined > requirements in the language. I may remember wrong, but I > distinctly remember you arguing for this approach in the > meetings we had on safety-critical requirements, and your > previous post seems to confirm that memory (the one where > you say that it was a waste of time attending that meeting). > > I sure hope that SOME people reading this thread come away with > a little bit better understanding of what language definitions > are all about (and also an understanding of why validation > cannot guarantee usability or quality). > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy. -- E pluribus Unix