comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: rav@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (++           robin)
Subject: Re: next "big" language?? (disagree)
Date: 1996/06/05
Date: 1996-06-05T00:00:00+00:00	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4p37cs$efi@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 4p1l65$35qi@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de


	ucaa2385@alpha1.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de (Peter Hermann) writes:

	>Kurt Johmann (johmann@moal.com) wrote:
	>: Programming languages are almost completely subjective, because the only

	>I strongly disagree

	>: minds apparently like that kind of enforced discipline (masochist types,
	>: perhaps :-), but to my mind it was a build-your-own-straightjacket-and-
	>: wear-it kind of approach to programming.

	>the opposite is true: a professional is always thankful for every
	>hint from the compiler or environment for potential errors.
	>Working with languages of the past like Fortran or C is true
	>masochism. I have worked on very large systems in Fortran
	>(one was a half million source lines of code, the other 300_000 sloc)
	>and we had to run the systems on every hardware brand.
	>I can see no advantage to allow e.g. a memory overwrite error,
	>by accident, or, e.g. an outside range value at run time or
	>a wrong subroutine call due to bad parameter profile.

	>When I decide, as a programmer, that a peculiar type or
	>variable may have a value in the range from 1 to 9, can you please
	>explain me why it should be useful to assign a value of 10 or
	>4711 or -1234?

---Why, someone inevitably decides that the range is going
to be something different!  Users are apt to change their minds.
Then someone has to go in and modify the program.  Or, someone
overlooked a limit, and put in a limit one smaller than that
actually required.  Again, someone has to go in and find where
that limit is, and change it.

	>I will justify the value of that freedom in your favour:
	>This has the big advantage that the typical Fortran, C, or C++
	>programmer being not immediately aware of an erroneous code
	>is happy to catch the error all-day-long and when the day is done,
	>he is proud to have found this bug and fully convinced to 
	>have fulfilled his work of the day.

	>In contrast, a poor Ada programmer does not have this fun:
	>a potential error is revealed at the moment of the very first 
	>compilation/execution. What a pity! No fun at all ;-(

---Oh how wonderful if this were so!  If it were true,
all our programming difficulties would be over.

Alas, it's just another pipe dream.




  parent reply	other threads:[~1996-06-05  0:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 100+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <4p0fdd$4ml@news.atlantic.net>
1996-06-04  0:00 ` next "big" language?? (disagree) Peter Hermann
1996-06-04  0:00   ` The Amorphous Mass
1996-06-04  0:00     ` Peter Hermann
1996-06-04  0:00       ` The Amorphous Mass
1996-06-05  0:00         ` Michael David WINIKOFF
1996-06-07  0:00           ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-04  0:00     ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-06  0:00       ` Ken Garlington
1996-06-12  0:00       ` Help making ada pretty CSC Trusted Systems Group
1996-06-14  0:00         ` Sandy McPherson
1996-06-19  0:00         ` Ruediger Berlich
1996-06-05  0:00     ` next "big" language?? (disagree) Ian Ward
1996-06-05  0:00       ` The Amorphous Mass
1996-06-08  0:00         ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-08  0:00           ` The Amorphous Mass
1996-06-09  0:00             ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-08  0:00         ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-05  0:00   ` ++           robin [this message]
1996-06-05  0:00     ` Ian Ward
1996-06-05  0:00       ` Ian Ward
1996-06-06  0:00         ` Richard Riehle
1996-06-07  0:00           ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-10  0:00             ` Richard Riehle
1996-06-07  0:00           ` Richard Riehle
1996-06-08  0:00             ` O'Connor
1996-06-11  0:00           ` ++           robin
1996-06-11  0:00             ` Chris Warack <sys mgr>
1996-06-11  0:00             ` David Weller
1996-06-11  0:00             ` James_Rogers
1996-06-11  0:00               ` Kevin J. Weise
1996-06-11  0:00         ` ++           robin
1996-06-11  0:00           ` Ian Ward
1996-06-12  0:00             ` ++           robin
1996-06-12  0:00               ` Ian Ward
1996-06-11  0:00       ` Jon S Anthony
     [not found]   ` <4p60nk$imd@euas20.eua.ericsson.se>
     [not found]     ` <4p8lmq$oq7@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
1996-06-11  0:00       ` ++           robin
1996-06-11  0:00         ` A. Grant
1996-06-12  0:00           ` ++           robin
1996-06-12  0:00             ` A. Grant
1996-06-14  0:00               ` Richard A. O'Keefe
1996-06-12  0:00           ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-17  0:00             ` A. Grant
1996-06-18  0:00               ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-24  0:00                 ` Robert I. Eachus
1996-06-26  0:00                   ` Norman H. Cohen
1996-06-19  0:00             ` Jon S Anthony
1996-06-20  0:00               ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-24  0:00                 ` Adam Beneschan
1996-06-24  0:00                 ` Keith Thompson
1996-06-25  0:00                   ` Simon Read
1996-06-25  0:00                   ` Robert A Duff
1996-06-24  0:00                 ` Dale Stanbrough
1996-06-24  0:00                   ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-24  0:00                   ` Adam Beneschan
1996-06-24  0:00                   ` Assertions (was: Re: next "big" language?? (disagree)) Robert A Duff
1996-06-24  0:00                     ` Assertions (a different intent?) Gary McKee
1996-06-24  0:00                     ` Assertions (was: Re: next "big" language?? (disagree)) Robert Dewar
1996-06-25  0:00                       ` Robert A Duff
1996-06-28  0:00                         ` Robert Dewar
     [not found]                     ` <4qrljg$15l8@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
1996-06-28  0:00                       ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-24  0:00                   ` next "big" language?? (disagree) Lars Duening
1996-06-24  0:00                   ` hopkinc
1996-06-26  0:00                   ` Marc C. Brooks
1996-06-26  0:00                   ` Marc C. Brooks
     [not found]                   ` <4qsbm7$r1s@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
1996-06-28  0:00                     ` "Assert"? "Assume"? (was: next "big" language?? (disagree)) Alexander Bunkenburg
1996-06-28  0:00                       ` Ian Collier
1996-07-01  0:00                     ` Cameron Laird
1996-06-25  0:00                 ` next "big" language?? (disagree) Brian Nettleton @pulsar
1996-06-26  0:00                   ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-28  0:00                     ` Fergus Henderson
1996-06-28  0:00                       ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-30  0:00                         ` Fergus Henderson
1996-06-30  0:00                           ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-25  0:00                 ` Darin Johnson
1996-06-26  0:00                   ` A. Grant
1996-06-26  0:00                   ` Dale Stanbrough
1996-06-12  0:00         ` Richard A. O'Keefe
1996-06-12  0:00           ` ++           robin
1996-06-12  0:00             ` Richard A. O'Keefe
1996-06-13  0:00               ` ++           robin
1996-06-13  0:00               ` ++           robin
1996-06-12  0:00   ` Jon S Anthony
1996-06-14  0:00   ` Jon S Anthony
1996-06-15  0:00   ` Jon S Anthony
1996-06-18  0:00     ` Adam Beneschan
1996-06-18  0:00   ` Jon S Anthony
1996-06-28  0:00     ` Assertions (an heretic view) Michel Gauthier
1996-06-28  0:00       ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-28  0:00       ` Robert A Duff
1996-06-06  0:00 ` next "big" language?? (disagree) Dale Pontius
1996-06-11  0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-06-12  0:00 ` Help making ada pretty Pedro de las Heras
1996-06-18  0:00 ` next "big" language?? (disagree) ++           robin
1996-06-07  0:00 Ian Ward
1996-06-08  0:00 ` O'Connor
1996-06-10  0:00   ` Matt Kennel
1996-06-11  0:00     ` Robb Nebbe
1996-06-11  0:00     ` Ian Ward
1996-06-12  0:00       ` Norman H. Cohen
1996-06-09  0:00 ` Robert Dewar
replies disabled

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox