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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,abd508cccb4803ea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-19 10:03:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.binc.net!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: C.A.R. Hoare on liability Date: 19 Jun 2002 12:03:50 -0600 Organization: LJK Software Message-ID: References: <3D0E09BA.A492AA3D@despammed.com> <27085883.0206190814.67fc4825@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1024506146 30276 192.135.80.34 (19 Jun 2002 17:02:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:02:26 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26403 Date: 2002-06-19T12:03:50-06:00 List-Id: In article <27085883.0206190814.67fc4825@posting.google.com>, mjsilva697@earthlink.net (Mike Silva) writes: > Wes Groleau wrote in message news:<3D0E09BA.A492AA3D@despammed.com>... >> Tying together two recent threads, >> a quote from "The Emperor's Old Clothes": >> >> ... we asked our customers whether they wished us >> to provide an option to switch off these checks >> in the interests of efficiency on production runs. >> Unanimously, they urged us not to--they already knew >> how frequently subscript errors occur on production >> runs where failure to detect them would be disastrous. >> I note with fear and horror that even in 1980, language >> designers and users ahve not learned this lesson. > > I sure don't understand this part. It sounds as if "our customers" > were saying that, yes, we know how important it is to have checks > turned on even in production code, but, notwithstanding that > knowledge, we simply can't be trusted to leave them on ourselves, and > so we must be forced by the compiler to keep them turned on. Very > odd! How about: We are never going to turn them off, so please don't make our user interface any more complicated than it already is.