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: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) Subject: Re: Is there a language that Dijkstra liked? (was: Re: Software landmines (loops)) Date: 1998/10/26 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 405226900 Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: houdini.camb.inmet.com References: Organization: Intermetrics, Inc. Followup-To: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-10-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ehud Lamm (mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il) wrote: : On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 biocyn@erols.com wrote: : > The beauty of these languages is that if the code : > compiles, it usually runs without error. With C and C++, you never know : > what you are going to get because it takes only one undisciplined team : > member to ruin everyone's day; : This is a very common view. However I find it a little too extreme. Buggy : code can be written in any language. Many errors result from not sticking : to what was designed, using flawed algrotihms etc. You can do this in any : language. : I guess many people here teach ADA. We see buggy code that compiles each : day... I think the real point is that a good software engineer will find Ada more productive, because the compiler and the run-time constraint checking catch a larger percentage of the inevitable minor mistakes we all make. This means that if you make it through the "gauntlet" of the stringent compile-time and run-time checks, your program is likely to have many fewer lurking errors than with a language which has weaker compile-time and run-time checking. : This is not to say I am against storng static type checking. I am all for : it. But you make a good point, that a language can't make a good programmer out of a bad one. It can help make a good programmer more productive, in my experience. : Ehud Lamm mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il : http://www2.cybercities.com/e/ehud E-List & ADA & SE -- -Tucker Taft stt@inmet.com http://www.inmet.com/~stt/ Intermetrics, Inc. Burlington, MA USA An AverStar Company