Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!ncar!ames!think!barmar
From: barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: gcc vs. commercial C compiler (Sun's)
Message-ID: <35961@think.UUCP>
Date: 1 Feb 89 16:55:11 GMT
References: <3627@cbnews.ATT.COM> <1324@goofy.megatest.UUCP>
Sender: news@think.UUCP
Reply-To: barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 27

In article <1324@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes:
>> Please tell us what hospitals buy your product so we may stay away 
>> from them.
>  Somebody is using some engineering technique or tool, or
>in this case, simply investigating the relative worth of a particular
>tool, and along comes the implication that the company produces bad
>product.

Thanks for saying what I wanted to say.  In addition, if anyone out
there thinks that there are no computers in modern, sophisticated
medical equipment, he's fooling himself.  And if you admit that there
are computers out there, what magnificent programming tools do you
think they're using?  It's unlikely that there are bug-less compilers
and assemblers out there (and even if there are, there's no way to
tell which they are, because program verification technology is not up
to the task).  I'll wager many of them are written in assembler, by
the way, which has me just as worried as knowing that they use Suns.

So, if you don't think modern software technology is good enough for
critical hospital equipment, I suggest you not get sick.


Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar