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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b0123581076a0cf3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-08 10:10:27 PST
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!slsv6bt!slbh01.bln.sel.alcatel.de!rcvie!Austria.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!psinntp!cmcl2!jpmorgan.com!jpmorgan.com!usenet
From: jgoodsen@trinidad.radsoft.com (John Goodsen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada ad in Embedded Systems Programming stinks
Date: 07 Sep 1994 22:44:37 GMT
Organization: The Dalmatian Group, Inc.
Message-ID: <JGOODSEN.94Sep7184437@trinidad.radsoft.com>
References: <CvFI4J.D5M@world.std.com> <34ecqc$b5q@source.asset.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: trinidad.ny.jpmorgan.com
In-reply-to: bishopm@source.asset.com's message of 5 Sep 1994 02:11:24 -0400
Date: 1994-09-07T22:44:37+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <34ecqc$b5q@source.asset.com> bishopm@source.asset.com (Michael M. Bishop) writes:

   From: bishopm@source.asset.com (Michael M. Bishop)
   Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
   Date: 5 Sep 1994 02:11:24 -0400
   Organization: Asset Source for Software Engineering Technology

   In article <CvFI4J.D5M@world.std.com>,
   Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com> wrote:
   [snip...]
   >      "What's more, the compilers will stop, rather than allow incorrect code
   >to go through".  Are you serious???   Do you think anyone will be impressed
   >by this claim?  Has anyone at DISA ever looked at current C/C++ compilers,
   >which stop when they encounter errors and jump you back into the code, a
   >feature that has been around for years?  As a marketing teaser, this statement
   >is useless.  You might as well claim that Ada compilers allow you to compile,
   >link and run from the same pulldown menu.

   pragma Soapbox (On)

   Anybody with an ounce of software engineering sense should be impressed
   by the above claim! A couple of years ago (1990-91, actually), I did
   some development work on some NASA applications in which I was forced to
   write in C. In C, of course, if you want to supply an OUT or IN OUT
   parameter as an actual, you have to pass its address. C compilers
   couldn't care less whether or not you actually pass an address. (I think
   ANSI C compilers give you a *warning* - big deal: it still accepts the 
   code). 

Wrong. A respectable ANSI C compiler will yell louder than a warning.
And puke out on the compile when you don't pass a pointer when expected.
-- 
--
John Goodsen                         Currently on-site at:
The Dalmatian Group                       JP Morgan 
User Interface Specialists                60 Wall St., New York City
jgoodsen@radsoft.com                      jgoodsen@jpmorgan.com