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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 109fba,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid109fba,gid115aec,gidf43e6,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!zen.net.uk!dedekind.zen.co.uk!feeder.enertel.nl!nntpfeed-01.ops.asmr-01.energis-idc.net!feeder.xsnews.nl!feeder.news-service.com!post.news-service.com!news1.surfino.com!not-for-mail Message-Id: <13886201.p35jjuWv0U@linux1.krischik.com> From: Martin Krischik Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng Reply-To: martin@krischik.com Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 11:09:04 +0100 References: <4229bad9$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <871xau9nlh.fsf@insalien.org> <3SjWd.103128$Vf.3969241@news000.worldonline.dk> <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org> Organization: None User-Agent: KNode/0.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@surfino.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.169.175.19 (83.169.175.19) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 12:00:09 +0100 X-Trace: 1d256422ae2b9f60c0ab610883 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8738 comp.lang.c++:44316 comp.realtime:1010 comp.software-eng:4542 Date: 2005-03-06T11:09:04+01:00 List-Id: Paul E. Bennett wrote: > Ludovic Brenta wrote: > >> * when the compiler cannot check some code statically, it inserts >> run-time checks which are guaranteed to catch all errors by raising >> exceptions. In C++ you must code these checks by hand, and of >> course at some point you'll forget one crucial check which will cost >> you days in debugging. > > I think the fallacy of that statement has been proven already (in a very > expensive way). You mean the case where some managers decided to use some software written for one pice of hardware on another - incompatible - pice of hardware - without retesting? In my book that was a management bug - If the managers had ordered to run the testsuite only once the problem would have shown. The hardware was so incompatible it would have failed all the time. Last not least: Runtime check where disabled for that incident. So if anything: this incident speak in favor of runtime checks. Read up your facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5_Flight_501 Martin -- mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com