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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a00006d3c4735d70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-08 00:29:35 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-atanamir.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 09:35:55 +0100 Message-ID: <4r4qvvoo21a01nderfn4us3iv468vqas0m@4ax.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-atanamir.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.116) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1073550574 5620966 212.79.194.116 ([77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4197 Date: 2004-01-08T09:35:55+01:00 List-Id: On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 06:32:05 +0300 (MSK), "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" wrote: >Robert A Duff wrote: > >> Ada functions are simply a procedure with a different calling syntax. > >>>From a compiler writer's viewpoint - perhaps yes. But certainly not from >programmer's viewpoint - if that programmer has and uses a brain (that is, >not just eyes and fingers). There is a well-known fact that human brain tends >to differentiate between result-oriented and "good next step" approaches, and >this has nothing specifically mathematical. Anyway, returning to programming, >I suppose you will not claim that there is absolutely no difference (except >syntax) between functional and procedural programming languages. That would be a point only if you were arguing for pure functions. Do you? But that was not the design goal, as many have pointed, alas. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de