Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada)

[Jim Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@att.net>]

"Paul E. Bennett" <peb@amleth.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:d0g4dp$og$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk: 

> jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> 
>> Ada does not replace rigorous testing or code reviews. It supplements
>> them. Code reviews are extremely helpful. They also consume a lot of
>> time for the development team when they are done well. It is best to
>> remove as many silly errors from the code through automatic analysis
>> before exposing the code to developers for review.
> 
> Thanks for that Jim. At least you seem to have been the first
> (assumed) Ada user that has admitted that the compiler is not the
> final arbiter. 

That is a fair assumption. I have been using Ada for over 10 years.

Ada compilers are extremely helpful in finding a lot of errors that
could be very time consuming to find during testing. One of the reasons
Ada compilers can find a lot of problems not found by compilers for
other languages is due to the syntax of Ada itself. The syntax,
when Ada is used as the language is intended to be used, provides
a very rich source of information about how you want to use various
types and objects.

For instance, in C++ you can create a bounded integer class. The 
compiler has no understanding of what you are trying to achieve.
You are responsible for writing all the range and validity 
checking routines.

Ada provides syntax understood by the compiler, for the 
definition of bounded integers. The compiler writes all the range
and validity checks for you. It also recognizes that two different
types are different. They are not to be mixed unless you explicitly
direct that mixing. This need to be explicit also makes code reviews
much easier. Any reviewer can clearly identify when you are mixing
types in a way that violates your own design.

Jim Rogers