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: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewarr@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Is there a language that Dijkstra liked? (was: Re: Software landmines (loops)) Date: 1998/10/27 Message-ID: <713p5s$ebb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 405480974 References: <6rf59b$2ud$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <70lrnv$mrp@netline.jpl.nasa.gov> <362F1906.B10E7F95@erols.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x11.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 202.135.47.101 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Oct 27 06:28:12 1998 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (Win95; I) Date: 1998-10-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Ehud Lamm wrote: > On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 biocyn@erols.com wrote: > > > The beauty of these languages is that if the code > > compiles, it usually runs without error. With C and C++, you never know > > what you are going to get because it takes only one undisciplined team > > member to ruin everyone's day; > > This is a very common view. However I find it a little too extreme. Buggy > code can be written in any language. Many errors result from not sticking > to what was designed, using flawed algrotihms etc. You can do this in any > language. > > I guess many people here teach ADA. We see buggy code that compiles each > day... > > This is not to say I am against storng static type checking. I am all for > it. Well obviously this is a matter of degree. It is certainly possible to design a language in which it is impossible to write an incorrect program (e.g. the programming systems derived from Martin Lof Logic systems), but the use of such languages is to restrictive to be pragmatically useful (at least so far). Otherwise it is a matter of degree. I first ran across the "well it's hard to get it through the compiler but once you do, it has a good chance of being right first time" in connection with Algol-68, and it simply reports an empirical observation. I do indeed here people repeating this thought in connection with Ada frequently -- I have never heard a C or C++ programmer make a similar statement, although I am sure there must be exceptions out of my earshot. The point is that this is not some kind of absolute guarantee, of course it is possible to write buggy programs in typical languages (Martin Lof Logic systems do NOT lead to typical languages -- indeed these systems are inpenetrable to most ordinary folk unless you have Dave Turner at hand to do his truly brilliant tutorial :-) The claim is different, it does not say always, just that people often have the experience of struggling with the compiler, and then when they get out all the compiler errors, things work first time. The other day I put in a rather complex change to GNAT affecting many units (a change to optionally allow debugging of the expanded -gnatdg source code). There were many compile errors the first time around, but when all of them were fixed, this quite tricky feature did indeed work first time -- very pleasing. Robert Dewar -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own