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: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) Subject: Re: Any research putting c above ada? Date: 1997/04/13 Message-ID: <5iri6b$jn0@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 234584262 References: <5ih6i9$oct$1@waldorf.csc.calpoly.edu> <334d3da5.14386594@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> <2senchydgk.fsf@hpodid2.eurocontrol.fr> <3359e813.340466234@news.pacificnet.net> Organization: Prism Systems Inc. Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <3359e813.340466234@news.pacificnet.net>, Kevin D. Quitt wrote: >On 11 Apr 1997 14:02:35 +0200, Steve Jones - JON > wrote: >>C is popular, it is quick and dirty, but I wouldn't like to trust my life to >>it. > >I wouldn't trust my life to software that was written in such a way that >it required the compiler to guarantee that it was safe. If you can write >safe software, you don't need to have the compiler covering your ass. >I've seen more bad code written because "the compiler will catch it". We take a lot of checking for granted, on the other hand. What if your compiler did not perform type checking? What if it could not even properly diagnose the use of undefined names or even pinpoint syntax errors? (I've recently worked with such a language/implementation---believe me, I developed some checking tools in a hurry!) A language should be designed so that an implementation could catch as many trivial errors as possible. That way, we can focus on making spectactular logic errors! :)