NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/lang/ada/2210

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-27 | 1.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!mips!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!visicom!rlk
From: [e-mail] (Bob Kitzberger)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Review of "Ada & C++: A Business Case Analysis
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:49:19 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <mfausett.711768327@kirin>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: VisiCom Laboratories, Inc., San Diego, California
Lines: 25

In article <mfausett.711768327@kirin> [e-mail] (Mark Fausett) writes:
>[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew Jones) writes:
>...
>>>"Ada validation is more rigorous than for other languages"
>>>    So what, there are numerous validated Ada compilers that
>>>    generate bad code, validation does not provide quality control.
>
>>[...] I would expect validation to prevent the 'non-working' bit.  I
>>would also expect it to prevent the 'mis-implementation' of features
>
>No, I've found it does not prevent non-working code;

So what's the point?  Nobody can claim that validation 'provides' full
quality control, nor that validation 'prevents' bugs/non-working-code.
Nonetheless, the presence of a rigorous (~7000 tests?) validation suite is
A Good Thing, no?   The lack of a rigorous validation suite is A Bad Thing,
no?

    .Bob.
----------------
Bob Kitzberger          VisiCom Laboratories, Inc.
[e-mail]         10052 Mesa Ridge Court, San Diego CA 92121 USA
            [phone]    FAX [phone]