Re: What I miss... (really C, Ada, religion)

[mff@wuphys.UUCP (Swamp Thing)]

In article <879@lll-crg.UUCP> brooks@lll-crg.UUCP (Eugene D. Brooks III) writes:
>Could we please keep this discussion in net.ada, net.politics or net.religion.
>
>I subscribed to net.ada for a month a year ago in apology to a ADA nut
>for posting the statement "ADA sucks" to the net.  There were a total of two
>articles on net.ada that month, which is proof enough that ADA is a language
>that is devoid if serious use.  The only people who like it are those who can't
>manage to write correct programs and need a crutch like subscript checking even
>in a production version of a code.
>
>If you program has a proof of correctness, and it checks its input data
>properly, it does not need range checks on subscripts.  Such checking only
>slows the computer down.  I don't have spare cycles for such a wast of time.
>REAL programmers don't need subscript checking, they write lint free code
>automatically.  Please leave your ADA hype on net.ada where no one is bothering
>to read it!

The whole point of subscript checking, as far as I'm concerned, is to use
during development.  I don't see how slowing down the cpu is an issue for that.
On the other hand, if ADA doesn't allow you to turn off checking, I could see
that would be a pain.  I guess we're not all perfect programers.  And having
"a" proof of correctness hardly means that a complicated piece of code will
work as intended in all circumstances.

						Mark F. Flynn
						Department of Physics
						Washington University
						St. Louis, MO  63130
						ihnp4!wuphys!mff

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There is no dark side of the moon, really.
 Matter of fact, it's all dark."

				P. Floyd