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 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site crin.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!vmucnam!crin!tombre From: tombre@crin.UUCP (Karl Tombre) Newsgroups: net.arch,net.lang.ada Subject: Re: What I miss... (really C, Ada, religion) Message-ID: <124@crin.UUCP> Date: Mon, 7-Oct-85 10:13:19 EDT Article-I.D.: crin.124 Posted: Mon Oct 7 10:13:19 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 10-Oct-85 05:47:35 EDT References: <796@kuling.UUCP> <2580002@csd2.UUCP> Organization: C.R.I.N Xref: linus net.arch:1672 net.lang.ada:376 List-Id: >>The only people who like it are those who can't >>manage to write correct programs and need a crutch like subscript checking even >>in a production version of a code. >> >>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! > > Right -- soft errors (or hard ones for that matter) never happen once > code reaches production. Not to mention things like tasks over- > writing other tasks data areas and things of that sort. Admittedly, > if these things happen you've got problems, but if I were the captain > of a 747, I would rather have the autopilot tell me to take over because > it detected a non-recoverable error and was shutting down, than > to have it attempt a manuever that would fold the wings like tin foil. > It it is dificult for me to understand that people can be so proud of their favorite language that they do not see its weaknesses and understand that in some applications another language would do much better. I myself program mostly in C, but I am convinced that some other kinds of applications than my own, ADA would be much better (and for others LISP and so on). Saying that REAL programmers don't need subscript checking because they write lint free code automatically seems a very arrogant position to me. Beware! Some day you might be bogged down in problem too complex to solve without help from range checking and such things. One main problem with C is its lack of abstraction, and in very large projects I would recommend ADA. No language is that good, nor that bad! -- --- Karl Tombre @ CRIN (Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Nancy) UUCP: ...!vmucnam!crin!tombre or ...!inria!crin!tombre COSAC: crin/tombre POST: Karl Tombre, CRIN, B.P. 239, 54506 VANDOEUVRE CEDEX, France "Car le plus lourd fardeau, c'est d'exister sans vivre." (Victor Hugo)