Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!xn.ll.mit.edu!mit-eddie!andante!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: ada-c++ productivity
Message-ID: <20139@alice.att.com>
Date: 29 Mar 91 16:45:55 GMT
References: <23084@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> <27ECFFBB.1F19@tct.uucp> <jls.669956572@rutabaga> <27F0E12E.5B35@tct.uucp> <EMERY.91Mar28111404@aries.mitre.org>
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
Lines: 16

In article <EMERY.91Mar28111404@aries.mitre.org> emery@aries.mitre.org (David Emery) writes:

> However, the biggest advantage of Ada for portability is compiler
> validation, that guarantees the compiler implements Ada semantics
> correctly.  If C really wants portability, it needs a similar
> validation suite.

I know a guy who wrote a library of generic algorithms in Ada.
He told me that he had a lot of trouble moving it from one
implementation to another, because even though the implementations
he had used had been `validated,' they weren't correct.

Testing can confirm the presence of bugs, but not their absence.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com