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: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) Subject: Re: Any research putting c above ada? Date: 1997/04/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 234383124 Sender: news@eskimo.com (News User Id) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eskimo.com References: <5ih6i9$oct$1@waldorf.csc.calpoly.edu> <2senchydgk.fsf@hpodid2.eurocontrol.fr> <3359e813.340466234@news.pacificnet.net> <334F11C5.F7B@worldnet.att.net> To: JimMaureenRogers@worldnet.att.net (James S. Rogers) Organization: schmorganization Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: [posted and mailed] In article <334F11C5.F7B@worldnet.att.net>, "James S. Rogers" writes: >Kevin D. Quitt wrote: >> I've written bullet-proof code for spacecraft and medical systems, code >> that must not under any circumstances fail in any but known and controlled >> ways. I've done it FORTRAN, C, C++, and assembler (not necessarily >> combined). It's not the language or the compiler that makes it safe, it's >> the programmer. > > Yes, this is the common rebuttal from C and C++ people. This approach > makes software development a lot like juggling knives. It is completely > safe as long as you are very good and your attention does not wander. So, while we're putting words in each other's mouths, may I categorize yours as a common rebuttal from Ada people claiming that mission-critical software written in a safety-enforcing language is bound to be perfectly safe even if written by careless, ignorant programmers? Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com [P.S. No, I don't believe that "mission-critical software written in a safety-enforcing language is bound to be perfectly safe," nor do I believe that this is a "common rebuttal" from "Ada people."]