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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,da46977c58c329df X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-31 13:43:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!psiuk-p2!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada's Slide To Oblivion ... Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:22:48 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <4519e058.0201310714.650888e1@posting.google.com> <3C598CAA.7040801@home.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1012504971 14039 136.170.200.133 (31 Jan 2002 19:22:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Jan 2002 19:22:51 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19444 Date: 2002-01-31T19:22:51+00:00 List-Id: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote in message news:3C598CAA.7040801@home.com... > > > The assertion "That's unheard of in the Ada world, since the compilers > are essentially perfect" was a bit much also. I've run into a few GNAT > bugs that caused me to scratch my head for a while. Ada does not > eliminate a programmer's logic errors, but it sure helps to eliminate > a wider range of stupid erros. > > Well, there's "perfect" and there's "***PERFECT***". :-) Its possible to consider the compiler "perfect" in the sense that it implements all of the language features with the semantics intended. Remember, we're talking about *C* programmers! They're used to diversion from the standard into completely implementation dependent systax and semantics. From that seat, Ada has to look pretty "perfect" in comparison. If we insist that "perfect" means there are no compiler bugs, then clearly Ada cannot measure up - but nobody else can measure up to that standard either. I just don't think that's what the author intended to suggest. But, of course, if people see and believe the line "essentially perfect" it might get them to start looking at Ada out of curiosity. I would just hope that they aren't overly disappointed when they encounter some non-portability or some feature that compiles to incorrect code. :-) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/