From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,c9d5fc258548b22a X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!f2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: KK6GM Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: How do I write directly to a memory address? Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 08:43:09 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <0e3fceab-5693-4d22-8ef3-cede968ef5ca@f2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> References: <67063a5b-f588-45ea-bf22-ca4ba0196ee6@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <737a6396-72bd-4a1e-8895-7d50f287960e@d28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <4d5008a5$0$6879$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <4d5031fe$0$6765$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <1f229967-d3cf-42b6-8087-c97ee08652f3@i40g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <4d51169e$0$7657$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <4d51905c$0$19486$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <36212a7b-deab-45d9-ac45-aa29cd90c7bc@o18g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <4d51a7bb$0$19486$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <4d52b489$0$19486$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <9a8njlwvey1p.1a96yvvgdf6yu.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.35.64.226 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1297269789 11398 127.0.0.1 (9 Feb 2011 16:43:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:43:09 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=12.35.64.226; posting-account=qZVz2QoAAAAN9WxYp-9jYb7jORc4Zqwt User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 barracudaweb.tritool.rancho:8080 (http_scan/4.0.2.6.19) X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; MDDR; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.1),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:18066 Date: 2011-02-09T08:43:09-08:00 List-Id: On Feb 9, 8:15=A0am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote: > On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 10:34:02 -0500, Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 2/8/2011 7:03 PM, Randy Brukardt wrote: > >> The 1% that are not garbage are written in a language that supports an= d > >> enforces real contracts. > > > I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. I sit day after day at a > > computer, and my spreadsheets calculate, my e-mail is delivered, > > my documents print, my wallpaper updates itself, my compilers > > compile my code, and my angry birds wreak havoc on smug pigs. > > Characterizing all of these programs as garbage because they fail > > to adhere to some Platonic ideal of perfect program design is > > ridiculous. > > > The mechanical world doesn't work that way - cars get recalled, > > pipes burst, termites eat wood, stray voltage shocks pedestrians. > > Physical world is ruled by statistical laws. Software is not controlled b= y > such laws. It is theoretically possible to say if a program is correct, > while no any car is. > > Even if the damage inflicted by a program is less than one by a > malfunctioned hardware there is a psychological difference. People do not > accept preventable or deliberate damages. E.g. it is OK for thousands to > die in car accidents, but intolerable when a single person die in gun > shooting. > I think a useful yardstick (yeah, I know, we should go metric) is to ask, if one had to defend some code in a court of law against a claim of injury or economic damage, would one be able to claim "best practices"? And unfortunately, many popular languages today, absent a cocoon of protective tools, cannot make that claim. Maybe that would change if more programmers were held legally liable for their work - not an attractive thought to most programmers, but one that would certainly produce interesting changes in language choice and programming methodology!