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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: ffc1e,a48e5b99425d742a X-Google-Attributes: gidffc1e,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,a48e5b99425d742a X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,a48e5b99425d742a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,a48e5b99425d742a X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,5da92b52f6784b63 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: jezequel@irisa.fr (Jean-Marc Jezequel) Subject: Re: Papers on the Ariane-5 crash and Design by Contract Date: 1997/03/18 Message-ID: <5gm8a6$2qu$2@news.irisa.fr>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 226439273 Distribution: world References: <332B5495.167EB0E7@eiffel.com> <332D113B.4A64@calfp.co.uk> Organization: Irisa, Rennes (FR) Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.programming.threads,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-03-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , milkweed@plainfield.bypass.com (Anders Pytte) writes: >In article , nouser@nohost.nodomain (Thomas) wrote: >I concur. In earlier threads I pushed the point that choice of language is >not as significant as good coding practices. Meyers et. al. are to be True. >congratulated on creating a language that incorporates as much good coding >practices as may be possible into a language. But they lose credibility by >asserting that language can enforce good coding practices. The language by itself does not (and cannot) enforce good coding practices. You can do Fortran in Eiffel or in Ada. I wonder who is asserting the contrary: I do not for one, and I do not remember B. Meyer "asserting that language can enforce good coding practices". What is true, IMHO, is that languages differ by the level of integration/support of best OO practices, and thus make it more or less easy for programmer to adopt them. You say yourself that Eiffel is "a language that incorporates as much good coding practices as may be possible into a language". For myself, I wouldn't even go that far. >I have learned to use assertion exhaustively in C++, even though I do not >work on critical products. I get the point about auto-extraction of >assertions into documentation, but in the end most coders feel more secure >looking at code itself (documentation may be incomplete or out of date). >There is no substitute for self documenting code, and for that purpose >assertion is priceless. It seems that we are actually in agreement. >I expect Meyers to push his own products, but to imply the Ariane-5 crash >was caused by poor choice of programming language seems out of step with >his otherwise impeccable manners. Unless our English is so bad that it betrays our thinking, we *never* implied such a thing. Just a point in a case: Eiffel simply did not exist when they worked on Ariane4. Let me quote the relevant section of the paper: <> In case it is not clear enough, I repeat again: *it is not a language problem* Let me quote another part of the paper: <> Please note the "language and method supporting built-in assertions and Design by Contract" and please do not reduce it to : "a language". -- Jean-Marc Jezequel Tel : +33 2 99847192 IRISA/CNRS Fax : +33 2 99847171 Campus de Beaulieu e-mail : jezequel@irisa.fr F-35042 RENNES (FRANCE) http://www.irisa.fr/pampa/PROF/jmj.html