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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,971aa11c293c3db1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-20 13:07:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!193.251.151.101!opentransit.net!wanadoo.fr!not-for-mail From: "Bertrand Augereau" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language? Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 22:12:37 +0200 Organization: Wanadoo, l'internet avec France Telecom Message-ID: <9ja31r$8ek$1@wanadoo.fr> References: <5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com> <5be89e2f.0107180235.726d46a8@posting.google.com> <9j3rrd$g71$1@s1.read.news.oleane.net> <5be89e2f.0107181300.4b4e93d7@posting.google.com> <3B57195E.A3A3FED@home.com> <9j93u6$1ua8$1@norfair.nerim.net> <3B586A17.862BA84D@home.com> <9j9s3t$kn8$1@wanadoo.fr> <9j9vmh$c5p$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: afontenayssb-103-1-3-242.abo.wanadoo.fr X-Trace: wanadoo.fr 995659643 8660 217.128.201.242 (20 Jul 2001 20:07:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@wanadoo.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Jul 2001 20:07:23 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10371 Date: 2001-07-20T20:07:23+00:00 List-Id: Sounds ok... It IS better to optimize when code is correct. And c++ takes the other approach. Is Pragma suppress part of the ARM or some extension? "Marin David Condic" a �crit dans le message news: 9j9vmh$c5p$1@nh.pace.co.uk... > Oh, you'll pay - just not with CPU cycles. :-) Consider it this way: Its > better to have the checks there by default (and by virtue of the language - > not by virtue of someone being "nice" and checking manually) and removing > them from the small percentage of code that may be performance critical (via > pragma Supress) than to have them NOT there by default (and requiring that > the programmers "roll their own", rather than have them by virtue of the > language) and try to intersperse them in the code as you start discovering > you have mysterious errors. > > I can't even begin to tell you how often my hide has been saved by having > compiletime & runtime checks in place in Ada that exposed eggregious errors > that would have been very hard to track down without them. When I wear the > embedded/realtime hat, I understand the desirability of getting rid of the > checks (in some cases) but I'm glad they are there for me to decide to get > rid of rather than have to insert them myself *after* I start discovering > problems. > > Now if C++ had some sort of compile-time switch that could be thrown that > said "Insert Checks", and the language actually had syntax/semantics that > provided information to check (ranges on numbers, array constraints, etc.) > then I'd think that C++ and Ada were at least equivalent in this area. > However, since there aren't any activatable checks and the language doesn't > provide nearly as much safety information anyway, I find this a major > liability. >