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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,c4cb2c432feebd9d
X-Google-Thread: 101deb,15c6ed4b761968e6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1094ba,gid101deb,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= <jvorbrueggen@not-mediasec.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1
Subject: Re: Ada vs Fortran for scientific applications
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 14:21:16 +0200
Organization: MediaSec Technologies GmbH
Message-ID: <4e078qF1cb6frU1@individual.net>
References: <mubcg.13522$fb2.853@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
 <epcs4e.qb8.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <tHkcg.6937$kR6.484@trnddc05>
 <0ugu4e.4i7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <PkHcg.90575$Fs1.7198@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <To_cg.10095$S7.4017@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <6H9dg.10258$S7.9150@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <XVadg.76594$_S7.45873@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
 <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature>
 <pan.2006.05.25.12.11.52.919554@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net u8zAjWtPtECYvV//Orkz4wxoUFe+1K6Ko7Y58uInf+YfWg5M8b
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <pan.2006.05.25.12.11.52.919554@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4577 comp.lang.fortran:10421
 comp.lang.pl1:1806
Date: 2006-05-29T14:21:16+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> The adverse consequences of exceeding bounds can be seen to
> outweigh the (usually) modest costs in code size and performance that
> even mature code should ship with checks enabled, IMO.

I am of the opinion that the Ariane 5 exprience shows that this is not
true in general. Had that exception been caught and dismissed by a last-
chance exception handler, the flight would have succeeded. The point is
that while some exceptions could be generated, there was no clear way of
handling them in any useful way, so ignoring them at least gives a chance
of success in such a situation, while just shutting down by default will
guarantee failure. An operational weather forecast is a similar situation:
I'd rather have at least some results _now_, instead of restarting the
prediction (after the bug has been fixed) and getting them just after the
storm surge has drowned a lot of people.

	Jan