From: cjrgreen@concentric.net (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Alternate to Unchecked_Conversion - Portable?
Date: 1999/02/25
Date: 1999-02-25T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <36d65c7c.15971534@nntp.concentric.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 7b49m5$eet$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:52:42 GMT, dennison@telepath.com wrote:
>In article <7b3glh$ml6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> A mantra that should be central to every programmer's
>> view of the universe is:
>>
>> "just because it works does not mean it is right"
>>
>> A lot of programmers violate this because they don't know
>> enough to avoid violations.
>
>I hope you try to ingrain this in your students, because I run into a
>depressing number of programmers who hold the opposite view. One gentleman in
>particular was of the view that putting any extra effort into quality above
>what is required to get the program to operate is tantamount to theft on the
>programmers part.
>
>Luckily, such folk tend to *hate* Ada, so I don't have to work with too many
>of them. :-)
>
>T.E.D.
"Just because it is right does not mean it works".
Code that must, as a matter of functional requirement, implement
interfaces between Ada and constructs that are native in other
languages, tends to expose any number of compiler misfeatures.
Maybe the Unchecked_Conversion of access types has
wider approval from those who develop language standards.
But I cannot afford to spend more time than I have to in
troubleshooting code that fails to port to a new compiler.
In the products I deal with regularly, address representation
clauses are the cause of no more portability problems than are
uses of Unchecked_Conversion. This includes products in
which Ada 83 and Ada 95 must be supported from the same
source code base.
--
Christopher Green
Advanced Technology Center
Laguna Hills, California
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-02-25 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-02-21 0:00 Alternate to Unchecked_Conversion - Portable? Steve Doiel
1999-02-21 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-02-21 0:00 ` Steve Quinlan
1999-02-22 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-22 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-22 0:00 ` Samuel Mize
1999-02-22 0:00 ` Christopher Green
1999-02-23 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-02-23 0:00 ` Samuel Mize
1999-02-24 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-25 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1999-02-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-26 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1999-02-26 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-02-27 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1999-02-24 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-23 0:00 ` Christopher Green
1999-02-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-24 0:00 ` Christopher Green
1999-02-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-25 0:00 ` dennison
1999-02-25 0:00 ` Christopher Green [this message]
1999-02-26 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-26 0:00 ` Christopher Green
1999-03-01 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1999-03-01 0:00 ` dewar
1999-03-01 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1999-02-26 0:00 ` Tom Moran
1999-02-26 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-26 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1999-02-28 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-23 0:00 ` Christopher Green
1999-02-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-24 0:00 ` Christopher Green
1999-02-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-26 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough
1999-02-26 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1999-02-22 0:00 ` Tom Moran
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox