TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 07:58:37 -0500
Reply-To: David Weller <[log in to unmask]>
From: David Weller <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> from "Philip Brashear" at Jun 11, 97 08:34:57 am
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
MIME-Version: 1.0
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (32 lines)
> Is there a requirement that compilers for these two languages be
> validated?  If so, who validates the C compilers?  It's my understanding
> that NIST is going out of the compiler validation business.  Surely you
> don't require that Ada compilers be validated while allowing unvalidated
> C compilers?
>

IMNSHO, validation was important to a VERY small subset of
developers/projects/program managers.  Many, many people have
overestimated the value of validation as a "motivator".  What we did
is create this type of logic (argue all you want, I've seen it
hundreds of times personally):

        if language = C then
                if vendor claims it complies with ANSI standard then
                        the compiler is good
                else
                        it's probably even better with those extensions
                end if
                C is a good choice since everybody knows it
        end if


        if language = Ada then
                if compiler is unvalidated then
                        the compiler is very bad
                else
                        compiler is very expensive
                end if
                don't use Ada
        end if

ATOM RSS1 RSS2