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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,35b525f397b0e034 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-21 14:18:14 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!swiss.ans.net!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!watnews.watson.ibm.com!ncohen From: ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Student views on Ada Date: 19 Sep 1994 15:29:46 GMT Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Distribution: world Message-ID: <35kapa$1fqc@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> References: <34kh42$le5@sun24.tfh-berlin.de> <85B31AAE640@annwfn.com> Reply-To: ncohen@watson.ibm.com NNTP-Posting-Host: rios8.watson.ibm.com Date: 1994-09-19T15:29:46+00:00 List-Id: In article <85B31AAE640@annwfn.com>, merlin@annwfn.com (Fred McCall) writes: |> if the |> language bashing comment is indeed the true state of affairs, it would |> appear to me that learning Ada first may have taught this individual |> some 'bad habits' that have led him to rely on the compiler to check |> things for him tht he should be aware of himself. I've seen this happen |> frequently when Pascal programmers are first learning C. This line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that one should never use a spelling checker, or that pilots should not be warned of an approaching mountainside. A writer should be aware of correct spelling himself and a pilot should be aware of approaching mountainsides himself. Being aware that something is wrong when it is called to one's attention is one thing; noticing an error--perhaps a clerical error, perhaps an invalid but seductive line of subtle reasoning--when it's buried in a large and complex program is something else. Some C programmers, lacking a language that facilitates strong consistency checks, may argue that such checks are for sissies--that Real Programmers do not need them. However, a compiler that performs strong consistency checks is, like a spelling checker, an important tool for protecting us from our imperfections. Its use should be a part of the state of the practice for responsible programmers, just as the use of a safety belt is part of the state of the practice for window washers. To call it a bad habit is to deny that humans make errors. Fools who make NO effort to desk-check their weekly reports to their managers or the logic of their programs, in the belief that their spelling checkers and compilers do it all for them, are bound to pay the price for their laziness one day. But that's no argument for discrediting the reliance on tools that make manual error-checking more efficient and more effective. -- Norman H. Cohen ncohen@watson.ibm.com