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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: fac41,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 1008e3,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 108717,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: 
 gide91fe56a56,gida07f3367d7,gid8d81cdf253,gid5b1e799cdb,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Mensanator <mensanator@aol.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.modula3,comp.programming
Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <9dff1fbb-1c47-4873-8f83-1d7a8ff17e2a@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
References: <h3sln0$rhm$2@news.eternal-september.org>
 <4BA8BA91.4050905@cherrystonesoftware.com>
	<4BA8F677.3090206@adalog.fr> <4BA8FD54.8020200@cherrystonesoftware.com>
	<e2b54b25-c75f-4167-9096-77a30027cee9@s20g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.104.181.214
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1269381771 5376 127.0.0.1 (23 Mar 2010 22:02:51
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:02:51 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=38.104.181.214;
	posting-account=OKTeIQkAAAAZk6JK1hK7-grwpoUDNy98
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR
	1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR
	3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.eiffel:580 comp.lang.ada:10687
 comp.lang.modula3:149 comp.programming:16458
Date: 2010-03-23T15:02:51-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mar 23, 2:33=A0pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 10:41=A0am, Jim Balson <lab...@cherrystonesoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > J-P. Rosen wrote:
> > > balson a =E9crit :
> > >> =A0 =A0 =A0IOW, stay away from the likes of Java, C#, Pascal. Unless=
 you have a
> > >> very specific reason for going in that direction. Your performance w=
ill
> > >> suffer.
>
> > > I don't see why you put Pascal in the same basket. Pascal is not part=
 of
> > > the benchmark, therefore there is no evidence for what you say, and
> > > Pascal does not require an interpreter or semi-interpreter.
>
> > I included Pascal because once you get up into languages that do bounds
> > checking, performance will degrade. Pascal is one of those languages
> > that does bounds checking. It comes down to this:
>
> > a) Either the programmer writes code to not exceed array bounds, or
> > b) Use a language that does it for you.
>
> > The choice of (a) will cost you a little bit of time developing.
> > The choice of (b) is going to cost you in performance when done.
>
> Aside from the fact that (as Pascal Obry pointed out) compilers for
> languages that do these checks for you usually provide a way to
> suppress those checks, (a) is a little bit na=EFve. =A0Or maybe a lot
> na=EFve---I don't know. =A0But it's like saying
>
> (c) The programmer writes code that just works perfectly all the time.
>

I asked a programmer once (after his program crashed immediately after
he compiled it): "Didn't you run this?"

His reply: "Why should I run it? I know how it works, I wrote it."