Re: Look what I caught! was re:Ada paper critic

[kcline17@hotmail.com (Kevin Cline)]

Vinzent Hoefler <JeLlyFish.software@gmx.net> wrote in message news:<3d0e5750_2@news.bluewin.ch>...
 
> I got another impression from most Ada program(mer)s I've seen. My
> personal experience shows me that the *hurry, hurry fast, if it works,
> I'll never look at it again* approach is more wide-spread in other
> languages.

Other languages are used by for-profit companies in competitive markets.

Ada tends to be used for long term one-of-a-kind development projects
being paid for by governmental agencies.
>...
> Well, considering how many of those few seconds I already hang around
> with C++ code to see how this or that function is declared and if it
> changes something, this sounds funny. In C++ I can even overload the
> [] operator, this changes the whole world.

You can overload the function-call operator too.  Both are very useful
in the right situation.

>...
> No. Its not a long time ago (was it in c.l.a.?) I read that C arrays
> are one element more on the right and left side because this becomes
> handy in using some algorithms that intentionally might get out of
> bounds. Such a design should make the code easier to write. Well, do
> you call that *right*? I would not.

Knowing so little about C and C++ I would think you would be
more reluctant to criticize them.  A C array does not contain
"one element more" on either side.  The standard allows setting
a pointer to the next element after the end of an array, but
such a pointer can not be dereferenced.