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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site sdcc7.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc7!ee178acb From: ee178acb@sdcc7.UUCP (DARIN JOHNSON) Newsgroups: net.arch,net.lang.ada Subject: Re: What I miss... (really C, Ada, religion) Message-ID: <112@sdcc7.UUCP> Date: Sat, 5-Oct-85 15:23:02 EDT Article-I.D.: sdcc7.112 Posted: Sat Oct 5 15:23:02 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 17:33:45 EDT References: <796@kuling.UUCP> <2580002@csd2.UUCP> <191@graffiti.UUCP> <393@ecn-pc.UUCP> Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center Xref: watmath net.arch:1888 net.lang.ada:389 List-Id: >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