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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) Subject: Re: Any research putting c above ada? Date: 1997/04/14 Message-ID: <5itl9l$1d1@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 234784034 References: <5ih6i9$oct$1@waldorf.csc.calpoly.edu> <3359e813.340466234@news.pacificnet.net> <33508283.56DD@aonix.com> <3373409f.494266577@news.pacificnet.net> Organization: Prism Systems Inc. Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <3373409f.494266577@news.pacificnet.net>, Kevin D. Quitt wrote: >I have a real problem with this. It's a nice idea to have tools that help >us. It's nice for the bad and mediocre programmers that certain language >features and tools can help them turn out better-quality code than they >themselves are capable of. But I think it's bad for everybody else. No >automated tools or language can *make* a programmer turn out high-quality >code. And while these tools may help prevent bad code, they present the >illusion that the code turned out is therefore *good*; this illusion is >dangerous. This is absolutely true. We have to remember that the purpose of a tool is not to ensure that correct code is produced, but to _reject_ code which is obviously incorrect. You can cut fat away from a steak, but there will always be some left behind, even if it's in between the muscle fibers! If you cut too much, you will throw out the meat with the fat, and yet still leave fat behind. (*) >You've seen some of it above. Turning a bad programmer into a mediocre >one serves nobody and nothing. I'd rather it just be know the >programmer's bad, and weed them out. That's a good point. Just because the tool has forced you to fix some ``trivial'' error doesn't mean that you understood why it had to be fixed. Poor programmers will just hack and slash a program until it is accepted without complaint -- for example by inserting clever coersion operators when the translator complains of type mismatches (it's not like Ada doesn't have coersion!). To someone (e.g. in management) who trusts compilability as an indication of program correctness, such a tool eradicates the difference between a poor, mediocre or good programmer. -- (*) This stupid analogy is not to be construed as an implication that I'm a flesh eater. Those Venn diagrams did always look like rib-eye steaks to me, though.