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,abd508cccb4803ea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-20 18:16:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!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: C.A.R. Hoare on liability Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:05:40 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3D0E09BA.A492AA3D@despammed.com> <27085883.0206190814.67fc4825@posting.google.com> <3D10C557.11C9DBC2@despammed.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1024578341 17075 136.170.200.133 (20 Jun 2002 13:05:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Jun 2002 13:05:41 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:26532 Date: 2002-06-20T13:05:41+00:00 List-Id: I'm confused about where this is going. Are we talking about creating some sort of "User Selectable Speed Option" in an application that allows the user to turn off runtime checks? (Never seen that.) In which case, if the "customer" doesn't want it, then you don't put one of those in. Or is the notion that the "customer" wants the program image built with all runtime checks enabled - implying that the compiler should never allow them to be turned off? If it is the latter, it seems intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer that unless 100% of all customers everywhere are *insisting* on full runtime checking (Never had one who went beyond "It needs to work all the time...") that a developer needs to have the option of turning the checks off for whatever percentage of the customers out there want to insist that you do so. So maybe I don't get where C.A.R. Hoare is going with this - you want to be "customer driven"? Or is it more important that you build "good" software - which *can* be done with runtime checks turned off when necessary? (Surely, he can't be convinced that it is *never* necessary to turn off runtime checks, can he?) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com "Wes Groleau" wrote in message news:3D10C557.11C9DBC2@despammed.com... > > How about: > > We know how stupid it would be to turn them off, > and we don't want to risk having them turned off > by the inevitable idiot that will slip past > even the best employment screening. > > or > > _We_ understand, but we don't want to take the > chance that _management_ will order them turned > off under pressure from _our_ customer to squeeze > one more millisecond out of the cycle time.