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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a00006d3c4735d70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-31 20:10:39 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!199.45.49.37!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny02.gnilink.net.POSTED!0e8a908a!not-for-mail From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: In-Out Parameters for functions References: <1075482385.142744@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <1%_Sb.6686$bn1.6285@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:10:37 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.84.157.220 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny02.gnilink.net 1075608637 162.84.157.220 (Sat, 31 Jan 2004 23:10:37 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 23:10:37 EST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5161 Date: 2004-02-01T04:10:37+00:00 List-Id: Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote: > And if evaluation order is fixed in the language then you lose an opportunity > to caught that potentially dangerous non-commutativity by testing with various > compilers and various optimization levels. I'm sorry, but this is abject nonsense. When you use a language that does not specify evaluation order and does not require the implementation to document evaluation order, you will gain absolutely zero knowledge about "dangerous non-commutativity" whatever the heck that might even mean, no matter how much testing you do on how many systems, becaus eyou have no way of knowing if any of those systems did their evaluations in an order different from another. > So, both decisions - to fix evaluation order in Java and not to do that in Ada > - are right, these languageas are extreme cases: Java is used primarily for > theoreticaly trivial applications, while Ada is often used for applications, > based on mathematically non-trivial theories. This is so nonsensical, it approaches the level of the Chewbacca defense. You may choose to believe this if you like, and I won't even attempt to argue with this line of reasoning. It would be like debating the mad.