Re: Separate Compilation in Programming Languages

[Ray Blaak <rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net>]

<adaworks@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> The more I examine the evidence about Java, the more I realize it is not
> dependable enough for the kind of systems where people's lives are at
> stake. Therefore, I will, as noted earlier, recommend against the use of
> Java for military systems where dependability is an issue, whenever I can.
> 
> When we are required to apply engineering practices in the development of
> computer software, neither C++ nor Java are sufficiently well-designed to
> measure-up to a rigorous model of engineering.  Ada also falls short in some
> respects, but is not as bad as the alternatives.  SPARK certainly comes
> closer to satisfying engineering principles and practices.  As of this
> moment, there is no language that satisfies engineering as well as we might
> like.  But that does not justify using languages that are so flawed that an
> engineer cannot depend on them to actually behave in predictable ways.

In spite of my rooting for Java with regards to dependency control, I
basically agree with the position of preferring Ada for rigorous environments.

-- 
Cheers,                                        The Rhythm is around me,
                                               The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak                                      The Rhythm is inside me,
rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net                    The Rhythm has my soul.