* C compiler warnings @ 2006-12-05 0:29 Brian May 2006-12-05 4:24 ` Larry Kilgallen 2006-12-05 19:41 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Brian May @ 2006-12-05 0:29 UTC (permalink / raw) This story, while not strictly related to Ada, might interest some people here. It seems to show that while Ada is going in one direction (strict compiler checking of code), C is going in the opposite direction (assume the developer knows what he/she is doing). http://blog.madism.org/index.php/2006/12/02/114-i-hate-closed-minded-people -- Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: C compiler warnings 2006-12-05 0:29 C compiler warnings Brian May @ 2006-12-05 4:24 ` Larry Kilgallen 2006-12-05 19:41 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2006-12-05 4:24 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <sa4hcwbrxr2.fsf@margay.local>, Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au> writes: > This story, while not strictly related to Ada, might interest some > people here. It seems to show that while Ada is going in one direction > (strict compiler checking of code), C is going in the opposite > direction (assume the developer knows what he/she is doing). The quote does not say "C" is going in the opposite direction from Ada. It shows at most that a particular implementation of "C" is going that way. The HP (nee Compaq (nee DEC)) C compiler on VMS has been steadily getting more and more checks added to find programmer errors. Of course it can never do so much as an Ada compiler, but it is not the case that all C compilers are decreasing their level of checking. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: C compiler warnings 2006-12-05 0:29 C compiler warnings Brian May 2006-12-05 4:24 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 2006-12-05 19:41 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-12-05 20:39 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-12-05 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw) Brian May wrote: > This story, while not strictly related to Ada, might interest some > people here. It seems to show that while Ada is going in one direction > (strict compiler checking of code), C is going in the opposite > direction (assume the developer knows what he/she is doing). Going in the opposite direction? C's basic design philosophy has always been to make that assumption. It seems to me that the C compilers with extensive warnings are the ones going in an unusual direction. I wish they'd all get rid of the warnings; then maybe more people would use a well designed language. -- Jeff Carter "We use a large, vibrating egg." Annie Hall 44 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: C compiler warnings 2006-12-05 19:41 ` Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2006-12-05 20:39 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2006-12-06 15:03 ` Maciej Sobczak 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2006-12-05 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:41:57 GMT, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote: > Brian May wrote: >> This story, while not strictly related to Ada, might interest some >> people here. It seems to show that while Ada is going in one direction >> (strict compiler checking of code), C is going in the opposite >> direction (assume the developer knows what he/she is doing). > > Going in the opposite direction? C's basic design philosophy has always > been to make that assumption. It seems to me that the C compilers with > extensive warnings are the ones going in an unusual direction. The initial C design was. But its further evolution has always been in the direction of becoming more contract-based, more like Ada. The difference though was in the treatment of contracts. In C traditionally less attention was paid to enforcing the contract on both parties. The contract (nonull) was assumed on the callee's side, but ignored on the caller's one. The rationale probably was that C usually does not try to enforce the contracts at run-time (Ada does). This can explain why nonull was not attempted to check. It is not fully statically checkable. So why should we bother? > I wish > they'd all get rid of the warnings; then maybe more people would use a > well designed language. I don't think so. They just would use more and more tools instead. It is the tool chains which compensate language deficiencies. Just look around, people are ready to invest into tools, which should by sole magic compensate for everything, from the use of C++ to mismanagement. A tool might cost several thousands of dollars, and it could be dozens of them. Try to sell a compiler for that money. Something is deeply wrong in all this. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: C compiler warnings 2006-12-05 20:39 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2006-12-06 15:03 ` Maciej Sobczak 2006-12-06 16:07 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2006-12-06 16:13 ` Maciej Sobczak 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Maciej Sobczak @ 2006-12-06 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw) Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> I wish >> they'd all get rid of the warnings; then maybe more people would use a >> well designed language. > > I don't think so. They just would use more and more tools instead. It is > the tool chains which compensate language deficiencies. Just look around, > people are ready to invest into tools, which should by sole magic > compensate for everything, from the use of C++ to mismanagement. A tool > might cost several thousands of dollars, and it could be dozens of them. > Try to sell a compiler for that money. Something is deeply wrong in all > this. What about SPARK? -- Maciej Sobczak : http://www.msobczak.com/ Programming : http://www.msobczak.com/prog/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: C compiler warnings 2006-12-06 15:03 ` Maciej Sobczak @ 2006-12-06 16:07 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2006-12-06 16:13 ` Maciej Sobczak 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2006-12-06 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:03:48 +0100, Maciej Sobczak wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >>> I wish >>> they'd all get rid of the warnings; then maybe more people would use a >>> well designed language. >> >> I don't think so. They just would use more and more tools instead. It is >> the tool chains which compensate language deficiencies. Just look around, >> people are ready to invest into tools, which should by sole magic >> compensate for everything, from the use of C++ to mismanagement. A tool >> might cost several thousands of dollars, and it could be dozens of them. >> Try to sell a compiler for that money. Something is deeply wrong in all >> this. > > What about SPARK? What do you mean? The relationship between SPARK and Ada is more symbiotic but still same. Eventually any tool [n-generation, meta-, domain-specific language] is parasitizing on its host, a "real" programming language. Be it UML, XML, embedded SQL, Simulink, templates, or, yes, SPARK... (:-)) -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: C compiler warnings 2006-12-06 15:03 ` Maciej Sobczak 2006-12-06 16:07 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2006-12-06 16:13 ` Maciej Sobczak 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Maciej Sobczak @ 2006-12-06 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw) Maciej Sobczak wrote: >> I don't think so. They just would use more and more tools instead. It is >> the tool chains which compensate language deficiencies. Just look around, >> people are ready to invest into tools, which should by sole magic >> compensate for everything, from the use of C++ to mismanagement. A tool >> might cost several thousands of dollars, and it could be dozens of them. >> Try to sell a compiler for that money. Something is deeply wrong in all >> this. > > What about SPARK? Oh yeah, and there is AdaControl, which was just announced in another thread. (You know your tools better than me, anyway.) As you see, "they" (the C and C++ programmers) are not that much strangers... ;-) -- Maciej Sobczak : http://www.msobczak.com/ Programming : http://www.msobczak.com/prog/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-12-06 16:13 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2006-12-05 0:29 C compiler warnings Brian May 2006-12-05 4:24 ` Larry Kilgallen 2006-12-05 19:41 ` Jeffrey R. Carter 2006-12-05 20:39 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2006-12-06 15:03 ` Maciej Sobczak 2006-12-06 16:07 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2006-12-06 16:13 ` Maciej Sobczak
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox