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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because... Date: 1996/07/18 Message-ID: <31EE19D1.6977@lfwc.lockheed.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 169551971 references: <31daad10.57288085@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <4rgqp7$iv6@btmpjg.god.bel.alcatel.be> <31e02c32.342948604@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <4rvr2j$2gb0@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <31ebfbd7.330061022@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Date: 1996-07-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Kevin D. Quitt wrote: > > It's a matter of choice, I suppose. Some people like their language to > protect them, I don't. I believe that a protective language can lead to > sloppier code because the programmer comes to trust the compiler to catch > sloppy mistakes; I've seen it happen. That's why I prefer spectacular > failures (e.g., core dumps) to quiet ones (error message on exit that the > program erroneously wrote on memory). This would seem to imply that you like environments that generate "spectacular failures" (e.g., exceptions) to quiet ones (subtle and random output differences) for "sloppy" code that has invalid pointer references, etc. True? -- LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"