Re: What I miss... (really C, Ada, religion)

[ee178acb@sdcc7.UUCP (DARIN JOHNSON)]

>If you program has a proof of correctness, and it checks its input data
>properly, it does not need range checks on subscripts.  Such checking only
>slows the computer down.  I don't have spare cycles for such a wast of time.
>REAL programmers don't need subscript checking, they write lint free code
>automatically.  Please leave your ADA hype on net.ada where no one is bothering
>to read it!

  Most compilers that do run time checking have switches to turn this
off.  Many large programs would take enormous amounts of time to
prove correct in terms of range checking.  These types of errors
crop up very often when the program is written by a team or when
using pre-compiled modules.  Range checking will spot these errors
in a fraction of the time it takes to pour over your output.  Then,
if you need a lightning quick program, just turn off run time
checking and re-compile.  

  I am curious why this attack was on Ada, when there are very few
languages that don't have some form of range checking, etc.  Off the
top of my head, Assemblers and C are the only ones I can think of in
which I have never seen run time checks.  

  REAL programmers wouldn't be as naive to think that they were
always perfect.


  Darin Johnson
  UCSD