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,d901a50a5adfec3c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,9f0bf354542633fd X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public From: Joel Seidman Subject: Re: Fortran or Ada? Date: 1998/09/24 Message-ID: <360AE7CC.167EB0E7@smtp.svl.trw.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 394707521 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <36068E73.F0398C54@meca.polymtl.ca> <6u8r5o$aa4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: TRW Sunnyvale Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Corey Minyard wrote: > > Jeff Templon writes: > > > > 2) you have to be more careful since with a big language, it is > > easier to make a mistake in writing the program which turns out > > to be valid syntax for some feature you didn't know about. > > This is not my experience with Ada, but it is with C, a much smaller > language. I've only done this once in Ada (Putting a * instead of a > ** in a type declaration). Only God knows how many times I've done it > in C; I probably can't count that high. It also seemed easy in old > Fortran to write code with unintended consequences. I think this has > much more to do with the good human engineering design of the language > and less to do with the language size. One of my favorite Fortran "mistakes" is: DO 10 J=1.10 (where comma is intended) This is perfectly good, but probably not intended, Fortran 66, a "small" (?) language. Error-prone is NOT related to language size. It IS related to good human engineering!