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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b0123581076a0cf3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-10 22:32:51 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!source.asset.com!source.asset.com!not-for-mail From: bishopm@source.asset.com (Michael M. Bishop) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada ad in Embedded Systems Programming stinks Date: 10 Sep 1994 23:41:21 -0400 Organization: Asset Source for Software Engineering Technology Message-ID: <34tu91$139u@source.asset.com> References: <1994Sep1.084046.21595@sei.cmu.edu> <344u9q$di5@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> <347idh$15ss@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: source.asset.com Date: 1994-09-10T23:41:21-04:00 List-Id: In article <347idh$15ss@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, Norman H. Cohen wrote: >And whenever I try to explain this to a dedicated C programmer, I receive >the reply, "What's wrong with just using Lint?" Ada promoters should be >prepared to answer this objection before they make the argument about Ada >facilitating the detection of errors. Here are some counterarguments, >some more compelling than others: [lots of good reasons that Ada compilers are better than C compilers + Lint snipped] My $0.02: The few times I tried to use Lint, either it didn't catch some actual problems with the code, or I had trouble figuring out the listing it generated. (Maybe I have a built-in bias against C or I'm just stupid. :-) Ada error messages include references to sections of the LRM so programmers can figure out why the compiler issued the error. -- | Mike Bishop | The opinions expressed here reflect | | bishopm@source.asset.com | those of this station, its management, | | Member: Team Ada | and the entire world. |