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: 103376,42427d0d1bf647b1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: john@assen.demon.co.uk (John McCabe) Subject: Re: Ada Core Technologies and Ada95 Standards Date: 1996/04/24 Message-ID: <830369569.19364@assen.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 151219326 x-nntp-posting-host: assen.demon.co.uk references: <00001a73+00002c20@msn.com> <828038680.5631@assen.demon.co.uk> <828127251.85@assen.demon.co.uk> <315FD5C9.342F@lfwc.lockheed.com> <3160EFBF.BF9@lfwc.lockheed.com> <829851188.11037@assen.demon.co.uk> <830205883.24190@assen.demon.co.uk> <317CB1C1.431F@lmtas.lmco.com> newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-04-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ken Garlington wrote: >John McCabe wrote: >> >> You seem to be defending a "make it fast, THEN make it work" >> philosophy here (which I completely disagree with) and confusing >> quality with run-time performance. >Except that, in the choices given, you could either have a performance >improvement (choice #1), or you could pass a test which did _not_ add >to _any_ measure of compiler quality. The second choice involved a test >with no value added to the user (this was a precondition of the second >choice). I was looking at it from the point of view that the test was for a language feature, and that language feature could be used at some time by someone - possibly me. >I think, given those two options, you would prefer #1, right? Certainly, >if choice #2 involved a useful test, then I might agree with your response. >However, the ground rule for #2 was that it was a useless test. So, >failing test #2 should _not_ translate into a bug in the application code, >and so the effects you described later should not occur. Given the options of: 1) Improving the performance of something I have that works and 2) Fixing something I want that doesn't work Then I'd choose 2). I'm loathe to believe that any of the ACVC tests are truly useless (although I have to admit I haven't looked at them so far), but in a general case, where the particular test mentioned was _truly_ useless, then I would choose the performance improvement. Best Regards John McCabe