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: 103376,c615e41a65104004 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: John McCabe Subject: Re: Ariane 5 failure (Was: Size code Ada and C) Date: 1998/07/10 Message-ID: <6o4is0$ji5@gcsin3.geccs.gecm.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 370131355 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6navqt$shc$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <6o3sid$qn9$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Avatar Computer Consultants Limited Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-07-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Dale Stanbrough wrote: >"You can always disable range checking in Ada, but was this the idea of >Ada ???" >The idea in Ada is that it gives you _more_ freedom than C. You have the >freedom to check or not to check. >The only option you have with C is to accept array index overflows, and >try and find them in the debugger. And then what? Put in checks manually that you could have done in the first place? As this would be an alternative option, your suggestion being the only option is not quite true. Also you have the freedom in C to put in your own checks. Certainly Ada is easier as it puts them in automatically for you, and will leave them out for you if you ask it to, but I would not agree with the suggestion that this functionality gives you *more freedom* than C. (Not that I think C is better of course :-) -- Best Regards John McCabe ===================================================================== Not necessarily my company or service providers opinions. =====================================================================