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: fd6dd,c78177ec2e61f4ac X-Google-Attributes: gidfd6dd,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,c78177ec2e61f4ac X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kwsodema@avistainc.com (Kenneth W. Sodemann) Subject: Re: ada and robots Date: 1997/06/19 Message-ID: <33ab7c11.18857400@news.mhtc.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 251156331 References: <338CDA96.53EA@halcyon.com> <338F5D7D.6C03@tiac.net> <338F9D05.5EB3@bix.com> <5mqpj3$bc5$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <33930245.12A1@sprintmail.com> <5mv984$7kn@news.emi.com> <33A5D644.37A3@epix.net> <33A6D407.53416C1E@link.com> Organization: MPI-MHTC Internet Newsgroups: comp.robotics.misc,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 13:14:31 -0500, Samuel Mize wrote: >Note that I make some comments about the person Mr. Whiting quoted, >but none about Mr. Whiting. Some quotations reformatted for length. > >Stephen Leake wrote: >> >> Matthew S. Whiting wrote: >> ( second hand list of supposed Ada deficiencies ) >... >> > >* Ada does not support discriminant unions (which are >... >> This is precisely the Ada discriminant record: > >Ah, but you can't hand-code the discriminant values. This makes it >harder to interface to existing C code, which of course makes C >fundamentally better. > >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. > You are being sarcastic here, right? If not, I will have to say I disagree. Unions in C are far from "safe", and Unchecked_Conversion is certainly not more dangerous than unions. [snip] -- Kenneth W. Sodemann kwsodema@avistainc.com http://www.avistainc.com