Re: Faulty languages and Liability

[Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <aeq407$lvr$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, "Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> writes:
> Well, O.K. Fair enough. But I wasn't really thinking only of arrays - or
> even only of Ada. There are *lots* of common programming errors that could
> be checked and detected statically or dynamically that currently aren't
> because programs are built in C/C++ and checking those errors is not
> automagic. Things like parameter passing to subroutines or the
> referencing/dereferencing of things by address. Many of these things can be
> fixed by Ada or other languages that do better type checking and such. You
> can do it manually by inserting your own code and/or code reviews and/or
> rigorous testing, etc, etc, etc. All that costs more than having the
> compiler do it for you. To *that* extent - its always cheaper. There may be
> other factors on a project that make some other less safe language less
> expensive to use - even if you have to add in all the costs of insuring
> minimal safety.

There may be other factors that make some other language more strategic
to use.  If the project is itself a compiler, writing it in the target
language guarantees some degree of inhouse testing.