I wrote "code security review" and you claimed that we would do that on our own code. You really have zero clue.

Oh, and BTW, the last Java project I had a part in killing was at a double digit million cost at that time. The reason? Unacceptable performance on a mainframe back-end that could not be fixed because the sorry excuses for programmers creating it had screwed up basically everything. So, yes, I very much have that experience you claim I cannot have.

Just keep your head in the sand. Otherwise you would need to realize what sorry excuse for a programmer you are. You also confuse "cost" and worth. And without Java, we would have less programmers, but far, far better software that would still do all the jobs that needed done.

Well, it certainly is a good thing that they try to put this language on a solid basis. It is used in far too many places to remain without a specification.

They are not. In fact, not at all. Most of mathematics is done informal, yet exact. Of course some intelligence is required on the side of the user and the writer.

They are not. But it takes some _actual_ understanding to see that.

I have to say I find Java apologist like you not only pathetic but repulsive. This "language" represents everything that is wrong with "modern" software creation. It is so badly designed, you cannot handle the sources without tools. It is so full of syntactic clutter, it is barely readable. It is so badly non-orthogonal, code re-use is a myth. Even badly written C or Perl is better. It is so slow and resource-hungry, that when you deliver some good-quality C-code that does the same, some people only believer your performance numbers after they see it in action. And it is so badly structured, that most Java "programmers" do not even understand most Java mechanisms. Java code is always incredibly bloated and incredibly hard to read and universally 10...100 times longer than it needs to be. It often solves problems that have already be solved in an universal way and does it badly.

Really, if somebody claims to be a "Java programmer", the assumption that they are fundamentally incompetent with regard to CS concepts, cannot do anything in any other language, have zero understanding for operating systems and that their Java code is badly borked is almost a certainty.

You very likely have used not a single language that has a formal specification. That is because there is not a single mainstream language that has one. The only language with a formal specification I know is Algol68.

And "fail to read plain English". The C standard is not a formal specification at all. It is a formal standard though. A formal standard is made formal by a formal standardization process. A formal specification is made formal by exclusive use of a formal specification language. Hint: "formal" means two different things here.

Sessh, does nobody know any basic CS terminology anymore?

Is somebody promises a "formal specification" they promise something very, very specific. In practice, you usually only need a "specification" and in fact, as I wrote before, a formal specification is typically pretty useless. People just should not try to inflate the perceived quality of their product by using words they do not understand.

You have obviously never done this. Pathetic. And no, we are not reviewing "our" software, quite obviously. If you knew the first thing about professional code review, you would know that coders and reviewers must never be the same or closely connected.

You whole statement was possibly meant to drip irony, but it only drips confusion.

If you had the least clue what you are talking about (or actually had read what I wrote), you would know that there are informal specifications around and that this is in fact the normal way to do them. You would also know that putting in some formal grammar does not make a specification a formal one.

You throw around big words but do not understand them. Pathetic.

I am not confused at all. I never wrote "formal language", I wrote "formal specification language", which is a completely different beast. You fail.

It is "as formal as in a formal specification language" exactly if it is done in a formal specification language. There really is no other way. And yes, "formal" is very much the central and most important point if somebody claims to have a formal specification. The "formal" is not a modifier to "specification", a "formal specification" is one very specific thing. I think you have no clue what "formal" actually means. Your second paragraph demonstrates that. Maybe stop commenting on things you do not understand?

And anyways, have you read what I wrote above? At the very least you have not understood it. Let me re-iterate: "Formal" and "exact" are orthogonal concepts. Of course, you have to understand both to see that.

ddd? Not needed in most cases, unless you have created a mess. Also pretty hard to use if you only have a text-terminal. Plain GDB is actually pretty good.