🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <FWQA._6@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>That bringing up the SDI bugaboo is pretty much an irrelevant digression.

My point is that for certain jobs, even if formal techniques don't 
guarantee perfection, the job may be important enough to get right 
that the extra effort done on a formal validation may be worthwhile.

Hacking xfish doesn't need formal techniques.

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

I don't find SDI amusing either.  I can see I touched a raw nerve here
by mentioning SDI.  Let me assure everyone that I don't agree with trying
to implement SDI, and as far as *I* can tell, it is doomed to failure
(and us along with it) if it ever is invoked.

>> 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.

I remember.  I still don't see the relevance. The explosion you were
talking about was caused from a station wagon, not an incomming
missle.  I don't think there are any plans (at least not publicly :-O )
to use SDI against station wagons.  

I don't see how you equate my stance (that formal techniques are better
that informal techniques) with 
a. desire to implement SDI
b. desire to not test systems 
c. blow up computers
d. fail to test missile launch vehicles
e. any of the other stuff you brought up

			  -- Darren




-- 
--- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware ---
----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, FDTs -----
     +=+=+ My time is very valuable, but unfortunately only to me +=+=+
+=+ Nails work better than screws, when both are driven with screwdrivers +=+