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,abd508cccb4803ea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-19 10:54:54 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!cyclone.swbell.net!bos-service1.ext.raytheon.com!bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3D10C557.11C9DBC2@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: C.A.R. Hoare on liability References: <3D0E09BA.A492AA3D@despammed.com> <27085883.0206190814.67fc4825@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:54:31 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.168.144.162 X-Complaints-To: news@ext.ray.com X-Trace: bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com 1024509293 151.168.144.162 (Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:54:53 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:54:53 EDT Organization: Raytheon Company Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26409 Date: 2002-06-19T12:54:31-05:00 List-Id: > > I sure don't understand this part. It sounds as if "our customers" > > were saying that, yes, we know how important it is to have checks > > turned on even in production code, but, notwithstanding that > > knowledge, we simply can't be trusted to leave them on ourselves, and > > so we must be forced by the compiler to keep them turned on. Very > > odd! > > How about: > > We are never going to turn them off, so please don't make > our user interface any more complicated than it already is. How about: We know how stupid it would be to turn them off, and we don't want to risk having them turned off by the inevitable idiot that will slip past even the best employment screening. or _We_ understand, but we don't want to take the chance that _management_ will order them turned off under pressure from _our_ customer to squeeze one more millisecond out of the cycle time. -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau