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-Thread: 103376,93a8020cc980d113
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.mv.net!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What is wrong with Ada?
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:52:16 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccodlqa7rz.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <1176150704.130880.248080@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
 <zyBSh.44138$oV.14776@attbi_s21> <461B52A6.20102@obry.net>
 <awirc4gv13.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <461BA892.3090002@obry.net>
 <yeabxgnsrj.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <82dgve.spf.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <1176226291.589741.257600@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
 <4eaive.6p9.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <sa4ps6apjb7.fsf@margay.local>
 <wccwt0ho2fc.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <1176580219.533928.53250@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1176591136 15284 192.74.137.71 (14 Apr 2007 22:52:16
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 22:52:16 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:f3fGk8Hm4tQQUKy7lfFcOjcsAJs=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15028
Date: 2007-04-14T18:52:16-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Chad  R. Meiners" <chad.rmeiners@gmail.com> writes:

> On Apr 12, 2:47 pm, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There is no way to be sure the code is bug free!
>
> This is only true in the same sense as "There is no way to be sure of
> anything!".

True.  ;-)

>...Hopefully, this was the point of the rest of the
> silliness that you posted afterwards. ;-)

Partly.

I was also arguing against the specific idea that if you can test all
paths (which is practical for SOME programs) then you've got a proof.
I gave a simple counterexample -- what's so silly about that?  ;-)

- Bob