Ada and pointers

[Tony Gair <tony@blueyonder.co.uk>]

>> > Windows 98 ... a success of the pointer-to-buffer macro-assemblers.
> 
>>Please don't blame assembler for Win98.  And there is nothing wrong
>>about using pointers to buffers.  The trouble starts when you misuse
>>them.
> 

Pointers however are non-trivial and all programmers do not write perfect 
code all the time. This is one the reasons that ada is successful I 
believe, because it is possible to have as near as perfect code in a 
re-used package (especally that avl-tree-generic package) then reuse it in 
non-pointer code.



> I don't blame assembler (it is of course necessary in some parts,
> and generally carefully programmed), but over-used macro-assembler.
> At a certain scale in a project one should have a rich typing, e.g.
> arrays - the true ones, with bounds.
> 
> G.
> 

I think Ada is currently the best open source language of code because of 
this factor and information hiding..

Incidently I heard a statement by a colleague ten years ago saying pointers 
are not actually necessary in any construction of code no-matter the 
purpose because it had been mathematically proven so". A very strong 
statement.... has anyone heard of this or was it hot air,

Regards
Tony Gair