TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Simon Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 19 May 1999 06:52:55 +0100
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]> (message from Roger Racine on Tue, 18 May 1999 16:05:48 -0400)
Reply-To:
Simon Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (15 lines)
> From: Roger Racine <[log in to unmask]>

> *  Since the testing is now being done by a commercial group (the ARA), the
> testing might be less rigorous than when it was done by the AJPO, so as to
> satisfy the commercial sector, which has less need for rigor than the DoD.
> This might lead to less assurance that the compiler is defect-free, which
> then leads to the conclusion that the end system will be less reliable.

A couple of points:

* given product liability concerns, it's possible the commercial
  sector has _more_ need for rigour than the DoD.

* what's your guy proposing as an alternative?

ATOM RSS1 RSS2