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: 103376,463c5796782db6d8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-11 06:31:05 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!news.airnews.net!cabal12.airnews.net!usenet
From: "John R. Strohm" <strohm@airmail.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: [Spark] Arrays of Strings
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:19:43 -0500
Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America
Message-ID: 
 <54F8CD091AF44543.C62D3F94D086FE15.8E3F43FBA1FD34CE@lp.airnews.net>
X-Orig-Message-ID: <b76fvq$9ug@library2.airnews.net>
References: <slrnb95ehu.ob.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <1ec946d1.0304090942.3106b4e4@posting.google.com>
 <slrnb9aagi.p2.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <1ec946d1.0304100609.52b0fac0@posting.google.com>
 <1049986095.779228@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <3e966fc9$1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net> <b76b3a$slo$1@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>
Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Fri Apr 11 08:29:30 2003
NNTP-Posting-Host: ![l>?1k-WQkE6_> (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:36090
Date: 2003-04-11T08:19:43-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> wrote in message
news:b76b3a$slo$1@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> I can agree with Hyman's point to some extent. Trying to eliminate all
> possible sources of errors via language design is not going to work and
only
> succeeds in making the language less useful in solving problems. (Sort of
> like trying to teach a pig to dance - it doesn't work and only succeeds in
> annoying the pig. :-) There isn't really any substitute for solid design
and
> rigorous testing if you want a stable, reliable end product. A "safe"
> language can lead developers to find ugly, difficult ways around the
safety
> features in order to get what the designers wanted out of the system.

"Testing cannot be used to show the absence of errors, only their
resence."  --Edsger W. Dijkstra

Yes, you can force some ugly and difficult workarounds for lack of e.g.
pointers and GOTO statements.

HOWEVER, no matter how ugly and difficult those workarounds may be, they are
known to be SAFE.  The simple, easy-to-use constructs they replaced were NOT
SAFE.

Secondly, the presence of those ugly, difficult workarounds draws the
maintenance programmer's eye, alerting him that there are demons and tygers
lurking hereabouts.  This is PRECISELY why Ada made the GOTO label syntax
INCREDIBLY ugly: they were required by the customer to provide a GOTO
statement, but they could, and did, warn against its use.