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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,28cd155693714664 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-17 21:52:39 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone2.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamfinder.gnilink.net!nwrddc01.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3D0EBC9F.9040104@mail.com> From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.1a) Gecko/20020614 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Faulty languages and Liability References: <3D0DE5E2.5010904@mail.com> <27085883.0206171100.7f6f0c5e@posting.google.com> <3D0E461A.8050207@mail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 04:52:38 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.83.247.204 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrddc01.gnilink.net 1024375958 162.83.247.204 (Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:52:38 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 00:52:38 EDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26201 Date: 2002-06-18T04:52:38+00:00 List-Id: Chad R. Meiners wrote: > Because design constraints might require it. Honestly, Hyman, surely you > recognize that a language with automatic checking that may be explicitly > turn off is safer than a language in which programmers must implement checks > themselves. If it's "criminal" to use a language without bounds checking, why would it be OK to remove those checks? It's like removing the safety guard from the chainsaw as soon as the factory finishes testing it, so that the customer doesn't get to use it.