Splitting up the replies.

"If by "certified" you basically mean "proved to be correct", how many
realistic programs are ever provably correct (many non-realistic programs
could be)? Surely a lot *are* correct, but could you prove it? I suspect
that most software companies "warrant" (if an error is reported, it may be
fixed) rather than "certify". "

No, that is not what I meant.

It goes back to this: "[ABO] ... produces a functionally equivalent executable 
program", which is a claim somewhere within the ABO site. OK, I can see a 
search-box at the top of my screen (sorry, "page"). It is in the User's Guide 
for ABO.

That is either some snake-oil marketing-speak, or something underlies it. I 
assumed the latter, and that now seems to be borne out by further research.

To me it amounts to "we can show that the program we produce, works in the same 
way as the program we started with, it just does it differently". This is a 
very different thing from the mythical program which can test any given program.

If IBM were to approach one or more organisations which represent 
companies/organisations who provide Audit Rules for large computer systems, and 
were able to get some definitive statement on the techniques used by ABO that 
underpin the above statement, then it may allow an easier take-up and 
implementation of ABO for large organisations, who have to operate under any 
number of compliance/audit/legal requirements, plus rules from parent 
companies, for instance. 

The idea is "damaged" by that bug. I can guess where the loophole was, (only a 
guess) and hope that it can either be included within the verification, or, if 
not, that that type of optimization dropped altogether.

For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to