🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <50577@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes:
> No argument. Of course, if you *do* write it in LOTOS (the subset that
> you could compile) then you can be sure it implements what was
> specified.

OK, fine. You can implement a subset of LOTOS, and anything implementable
in that subset is implementable in C. End of argument.

> >> I understand a CPU called "viper" has in some way been formally validated.
> >Fine. How about the rest of the system (up to and including launch vehicles,
> >ordnance, sensors, etc...)?

> Probably not.  What's your point?

That bringing up the SDI bugaboo is pretty much an irrelevant digression.

Is viper fast enough to do the job? Will it remain so?

> Well, the quality of this post is certainly not up to the standards I've
> come to expect from your posts.  If you forgot the :-)'s then I understand.

I'm running out of smileys. I don't find SDI amusing. "Nuclear War can
ruin your whole compile" -- Karl Lehenbauer.

> I can't imagine what blowing up the computer has to do with whether
> there are bugs in a program due to misunderstanding of what the
> compiler is supposed to support.

The symptom of a failure in SDI is nuclear explosions in major cities,
remember.

Hey, you brought up SDI. If you want to use a reasonable example against
informal programming methods, or whatever, how about the Therac incident?
Much more appropriate.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  peter@ferranti.com
+1 713 274 5180.  'U`  "Have you hugged your wolf today?"