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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,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: WhiteR@CRPL.Cedar-Rapids.lib.IA.US (Robert S. White) Subject: Re: Any research putting c above ada? Date: 1997/04/15 Message-ID: <5iui29$iei@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 234816494 References: <5ih6i9$oct$1@waldorf.csc.calpoly.edu> <33508283.56DD@aonix.com> <3373409f.494266577@news.pacificnet.net> <5is19p$g3i@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu> <5itlph$1k9@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> Organization: ... Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <5itlph$1k9@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>, kaz@vision.crest.nt.com says... >So every C compiler I have used lets me ignore compiler time diagnostics >that don't lead to translation failure. I think Kevin was talking about >static safety features, though, and language features that let you override >these features (rather than compiler options). I am talking about compiler options (just like setting Visual C for a "release build"). Again I am confused, what exactly is your point here? I still don't see the diff using Ada. What are "language features that let you override >these features (rather than compiler options)"? >Such tests often don't have full coverage. A good language would force the >run-time checks to remain in the production code. Or are you saying that >safety should take a back seat to speed when it comes time to ship the >code? Maybe Ada programmers are not that different from other programmers >after all. Why FORCE extra stuff at runtime that might already have been thoroughly tested? If your can afford it, OK, let the good tool/language do it. If you can't...test it properly and then turn off the runtime checks. Duh! >>Then the project librarian/project engineer can choose to turn checks >>off on the high rate realtime tasks if the through-put benefits are >>required. > >Ah I see. ``The code is too slow! Checking be damned''. :) No...It is although a deliberate design tradeoff...we have to give up on the Ada runtime checks after all the normal testing has been conducted to find (hopefully all) the errors in the code and it is neccessary to turn off checks to meet runtime deadlines or data latencey requirements. Welcome to the cold hard world! But it is silly to give up on a good tool and not let it continue to help you when it does not add TOO much burden. Only turn off checks when you HAVE TOO not "Checking be damned". Catch my drift? _____________________________________________________________________ Robert S. White -- an embedded sys software engineer