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: 103376,28cd155693714664 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-19 03:29:27 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!213.56.195.71!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!proxad.net!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news-x2.support.nl!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!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: Faulty languages and Liability Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:49:51 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3D0DE5E2.5010904@mail.com> <27085883.0206171100.7f6f0c5e@posting.google.com> <3D0E461A.8050207@mail.com> <3D0F2C6D.14B0380E@gbr.msd.ray.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1024408193 24074 136.170.200.133 (18 Jun 2002 13:49:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jun 2002 13:49:53 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:26369 Date: 2002-06-18T13:49:53+00:00 List-Id: No, its still valid to need to turn off runtime checks in *some* areas and applications. Imagine high-speed control loops in realtime apps or incredibly large matrix calculations that you want to finish within our lifetimes. I'll grant you that these situations are rare in comparison to most apps ever developed, but they do exist. If reliability is needed and speed is an issue, the typical answer is to either analyze or extensively test before operating without the safety net. I agree that *most* programs should not have the checks disabled. They don't present enough overhead to significantly impact anything & you are better off running with them. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com "Steve O'Neill" wrote in message news:3D0F2C6D.14B0380E@gbr.msd.ray.com... > > Because 1) there was great fear that the performance penalties might be > too > great for some applications and 2) some folks believed that they could > sufficiently test the software to the point that such checks were > unnecessary. > In my experience neither of these are valid (at least not since the > early 80's).