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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-13 07:46:11 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!wn12feed!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Reply-To: "James S. Rogers" From: "James S. Rogers" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305010621.55e99deb@posting.google.com> <254c16a.0305011035.13133e8d@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305011727.5eae0222@posting.google.com> <17cd177c.0305072114.24f04783@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305090612.261d5a5c@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305091549.48b9c5d9@posting.google.com> <3EC10141.7070000@psu.edu> Subject: Re: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 14:46:11 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.86.32.32 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1052837171 12.86.32.32 (Tue, 13 May 2003 14:46:11 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 14:46:11 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:37283 Date: 2003-05-13T14:46:11+00:00 List-Id: "Robert Spooner" wrote in message news:3EC10141.7070000@psu.edu... > > > Dr Chaos wrote: > > On Fri, 9 May 2003 21:44:29 -0500, John R. Strohm wrote: > > > > > > But in practical reality bounds checking is usually not a life vest on > > the open ocean. It's an automatic box that sqwacks, "Danger Will > > Robinson, Drowning Alert!!!" when the hull is 3/4ths submerged. > > > > > > Not that I have a problem with it---I hate programming without it > > Actually, bounds checking tells you to fix the leak before you leave the > harbor. In theory only. In practice, the only way to detect bounds checking errors in C is to either carefully inspect the code for all such errors, or test test test test. Of those two choices code inspection is the most efficient solution. In either case there is a strong likelyhood that you will miss one or two subtle conditions that cause array bounds violations. Using a language with array bounds checking built in means that detection is automatic at run time. Using the Ada approach, where you must clearly define the array index range to the compiler, most bounds violations are caught at compile time. With Ada you fix the leak before leaving the ship yard. Jim Rogers