Re: Operationally well-tried

[Ulrich Elsner]

Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> writes:
> At Thu, 03 May 2007 21:30:16 +0200 Ulrich Elsner wrote:
>> But question and comments suggest to me that our evaluator (?)
>> considers a rarely changing compiler as more trustworthy.
>
> What *exactly* do you mean by 'evaluator' -- are you refering to a
> person or to a program (or procedure).

Person (or persons). Our program or, more exactly, our software 
development process) will be evaluated according to a somewhat 
obscure norm (EN50128).

We have done that before, but only for Windows programs. Now we
want to develop for Linux a program that needs to be evaluated.
I wasn't directly involved in the Windows evaluation, hence
my somewhat 'indirect' understanding of the (interpretations)
of the requirements. 


>> So, Visual C++ 6 is good. 
>> I think the reasoning behind this is: you know the 
>> idiosyncrasies and you can work around them.
>
> There should NOT be any 'idiosyncrasies': 'idiosyncrasies' == unfixed
> bugs! In other words, the 'rarely changing compiler' is really a 'buggy'
> compliler and/or a compiler that does not follow the current standard
> language specification.

I am not going to argue with you, because I think you are right, but

> It sounds like your 'evaluator' is using some really *bad* evaluation
> methods... 

I also try to avoid fundamental arguments with somebody whom I want to 
certify my software. Thus my search: if I can show that g++ will fit
the requirements as well, I get to use the compiler I want without
potentially antagonizing our evaluator.

Ulrich "I'd rather be programming" Elsner