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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,32cfbb718858528b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-10 15:35:14 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!cyclone.swbell.net!bos-service1.ext.raytheon.com!dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3D052990.659C5D6F@despammed.com> From: Wes Groleau Reply-To: wesgroleau@despammed.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,es-MX,es,pt,fr-CA,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Commercial C To Ada 95 compiler References: <3D002D11.CC706952@adaworks.com> <4519e058.0206071148.9b87acf@posting.google.com> <3D0116F3.7254E263@despammed.com> <3D018106.6080004@worldnet.att.net> <3D04F442.741C386C@despammed.com> <3D05132C.3B45562F@despammed.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:34:56 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.168.144.162 X-Complaints-To: news@ext.ray.com X-Trace: dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com 1023748513 151.168.144.162 (Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:35:13 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:35:13 CDT Organization: Raytheon Company Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:25703 Date: 2002-06-10T17:34:56-05:00 List-Id: > > 1. Intentional documented implementation decisions > > 2. Intentional undocumented implementation decisions > > 3. Careless mistakes, whether harmful or not. > > Right, and surely the vast majority are not of kind 3... C and C culture being what it is, I imagine a LOT of them are. Much of the C code I've seen gives the distinct impression that it never had ANY implementation "decisions" except those made when after it failed. Of course, I can't say I've never seen Ada code like that. :-) Considering the quantity of careless mistakes I've seen in Ada--a language that discourages them--how much better can it be in a language that encourages them? -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau