For some ISO standard programming languages such as Ada and C++ there are validation test suites one can exercise against a compiler to determine whether that compiler conforms to the standard. As far as I know, only the Ada developers demand that a compiler publisher include a certificate of conformance with their compilers. This could be because Ada is targeted at safety-critical software where an accident can kill or maim someone. Or it may be that few C++ compilers could actually pass the validation suite. In either case, when developing software where high reliability is essential, standards do have some virtue. For experimental software and programming for fun, standards can be a nuisance.
1) Ada was not designed by committee. The design team, led by a single person, did benefit from the reviews submitted by software practitioners worldwide. 2) It is not as huge as C++ or COBOL. In fact, it is designed around a few very good principles. These principles lead to a set of very rigorous rules for compiler development organized into thirteen fairly small chapters. 3)We can write very small programs or very large programs in Ada. Usually, it is used for large-scale projects where a team of developers must communicate effectively with each other rather than for one or two person projects. 4) Anyone who thinks the source code is, of necessity, verbose, simply has not read enough code. 5) The design goals of Ada are fairly straightforward. One of the most important is: the language design should allow a compiler to catch the maximum number of errors as early in the development process as possible. There are not very many languages with that design goal. Richard Riehle
Slashdot Mirror
For some ISO standard programming languages such as Ada and C++ there are validation test suites one can exercise against a compiler to determine whether that compiler conforms to the standard. As far as I know, only the Ada developers demand that a compiler publisher include a certificate of conformance with their compilers. This could be because Ada is targeted at safety-critical software where an accident can kill or maim someone. Or it may be that few C++ compilers could actually pass the validation suite. In either case, when developing software where high reliability is essential, standards do have some virtue. For experimental software and programming for fun, standards can be a nuisance.
1) Ada was not designed by committee. The design team, led by a single person, did benefit from the reviews submitted by software practitioners worldwide. 2) It is not as huge as C++ or COBOL. In fact, it is designed around a few very good principles. These principles lead to a set of very rigorous rules for compiler development organized into thirteen fairly small chapters. 3)We can write very small programs or very large programs in Ada. Usually, it is used for large-scale projects where a team of developers must communicate effectively with each other rather than for one or two person projects. 4) Anyone who thinks the source code is, of necessity, verbose, simply has not read enough code. 5) The design goals of Ada are fairly straightforward. One of the most important is: the language design should allow a compiler to catch the maximum number of errors as early in the development process as possible. There are not very many languages with that design goal. Richard Riehle