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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e95e8407f65e1cfb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-18 12:16:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: kcline17@hotmail.com (Kevin Cline) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Look what I caught! was re:Ada paper critic Date: 18 Jun 2002 12:16:03 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <3d0e5750_2@news.bluewin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.76.70.227 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1024427764 10000 127.0.0.1 (18 Jun 2002 19:16:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jun 2002 19:16:04 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26285 Date: 2002-06-18T19:16:04+00:00 List-Id: Vinzent Hoefler 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.