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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.66.147.132 with SMTP id tk4mr4703749pab.7.1414542879135; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:34:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.23.46 with SMTP id j14mr399508igf.17.1414542878991; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!h15no1143745igd.0!news-out.google.com!ks2ni4879igb.0!nntp.google.com!h15no1143739igd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:34:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=KSa2aQoAAACOxnC0usBJYX8NE3x3a1Xq NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <220f97ab-9aa2-4961-b140-2b271c3ab99a@googlegroups.com> <99759c3f-a35f-4745-a8fd-2fb6ab6fb1aa@googlegroups.com> <48dc1630-8e7d-4e29-8bdd-53d74932d9d0@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <88a7f98c-55c2-4b5f-8a9d-c8b7512781c8@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: F-22 ADA Programming From: Adam Beneschan Injection-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:34:39 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 3097 X-Received-Body-CRC: 3488517667 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:22884 Date: 2014-10-28T17:34:38-07:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 4:59:32 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Carter wrote: > > (And if anyone believes #2 is impossible, because the C++ language some= how=20 > > emits unsafeness waves that travel through the air and into your monit= or and > > turn all your carefully-written safe code into unsafe code ... OK, I'm = being > > silly, but that just isn't correct. That's one of the reasons I reacte= d so > > strongly to Jeff's earlier post, because it seemed to equate using an u= nsafe > > language to writing unsafe code, which of course is wrong. You can wri= te > > safe code in any language. It may take a little more work in some lang= uages; > > but if you're aware of the need to write safe code, and are disciplined= , it > > can be done. And if you're not, Ada isn't going to help.) >=20 > I don't think #2 is impossible, just unlikely, given the kind of people w= ho like > C++. You're more likely to be ostracized by your fellow coders for writi= ng > "inefficient code", labeled "not a team player" by manglement, and fired. By "impossible" I was referring to the possibility of writing safe code in = C++, not the possibility of convincing your fellow programmers to actually = try to do so. My wording was unclear. But even so, let's say you're right= about what would happen--are you still going to argue that taking the job = in the first place would be a less ethical choice, as you seemed to be argu= ing earlier? -- Adam