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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: fac41,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 108717,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: 
 gide91fe56a56,gida07f3367d7,gid5b1e799cdb,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: jpwoodruff <jpwoodruff@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.modula3,comp.programming
Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <5a11a223-32a1-4b82-ae2c-cba867140636@u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
References: <h3sln0$rhm$2@news.eternal-september.org>
 <4BA8BA91.4050905@cherrystonesoftware.com>
	<4BA8F677.3090206@adalog.fr> <4BA8FD54.8020200@cherrystonesoftware.com>
	<4ba9005a$0$15857$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.103.87.119
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1269369251 2039 127.0.0.1 (23 Mar 2010 18:34:11
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:34:11 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=76.103.87.119;
	posting-account=eLk0BgoAAAA-yA75xm1L7heSizMaESVg
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2)
	Gecko/20100115 Firefox/3.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.eiffel:574 comp.lang.ada:10677
 comp.lang.modula3:143 comp.programming:16451
Date: 2010-03-23T11:34:11-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mar 23, 10:54=A0am, Pascal Obry <pas...@obry.net> wrote:

<jpw removed discussion of bounds checking>

> But anyway this is not even an issue. For performance you can always
> remove the checks using the right compiler option. Then you have the
> best of both worlds. During development the checks are really helpful,
> in production you remove them.
>

I hope I'm not the only old-timer who remembers:

"This is the case of the sailor who wears his life jacket while
rigging his boat,
then leaves it ashore when he goes sailing."

John