Re: ada and robots

[Steve O'Neill <"x0955$"@sanders.lockheed.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1688 bytes --]


Samuel Mize wrote:
> Besides, you can't load the variable with one type and then read it
> as another type.  In C it's simple and safe, while in Ada it requires
> Unchecked_Conversion, which everyone knows is dangerous.

It's simple in C but not necessarily safe.  

and Mr. Whiting said
>>>>USE AT, Unchecked_Conversion, Unchecked_Access, and
>>>>Unchecked_Deallocation; one might ask why Ada needs such dangerous
>>>>elements within the language unless they are required so that the
>>>>language can perform certain tasks (which require them).

I am constantly flabbergasted by the argument that Unchecked_Conversion
and its close cousins are dangerous while uncontrolled and un-obvious
use of typecasting and address manipulation in C are acceptable.  Let's
face it folks, when you're playing around at this level it's all
inherently dangerous.  But there are times when this level of control is
necessary.  The point that I like about Ada is that it makes you
recognize that you are in dangerous territory while C hands you the rope
with which to hang yourself.  In my endeavours I try to layer
applications such that the application has some insulation from the
metal.  Ada lets me do this quite well, thank you.

>>>>... Once elements such as these are used (and
>>>>they must in many low-level systems programs), the touted
>>>> type-safe, robust Ada system is no longer� but now in the same
>>>>field as many other languages.

Maybe so, but at least I can more easily identify those areas of
"thin-ice".
 
-- 
Steve O'Neill                    Sr. Software Engineer
Sanders                          Nashua, New Hampshire
(603) 885-9765 (voice)           (603) 885-2483 (fax)