Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!nuchat!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Formal definitions (Re: ada-c++ productivity) Message-ID: Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC References: <27FB56D8.6176@tct.com> <1991Apr8.080931.23209@netcom.COM> <50097@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 16:55:41 GMT In article <50097@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: > You can also write programs which could not possibly be implemented in > C, even by Dan Bernstein :-). What more proof do you need? This is as insane a claim as any of Dan's. If it's implementable in principle it's implementable in C. It might take building another language on top of C to make it convenient, but it's implementable. > How do you know Ada's validation suite tests all the semantics of Ada? > Do you want to build SDI based on "I think so"? Is there an alternative? How do you specify hardware and human actions based on a formal language specification? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"