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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HEADER_SPAM
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fc772,b30bd69fa8f63cb2
X-Google-Attributes: gidfc772,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b30bd69fa8f63cb2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-12 03:25:04 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!not-for-mail
From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail@moderncppdesign.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++.moderated
Subject: Re: C bug of the day
Date: 12 Jun 2003 06:27:20 -0400
Organization: unknown
Sender: cppmods@netlab.cs.rpi.edu
Message-ID: <bc9h7j$gm42t$1@ID-14036.news.dfncis.de>
References: <1054751321.434656@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <memo.20030605193115.9141A@brangdon.madasafish.com>
 <d6652001.0306100323.338a2a1c@posting.google.com>
 <Xns9396BDBB14558jimmaureenrogers@204.127.36.1>
 <bc8423$gt53a$1@ID-14036.news.dfncis.de>
 <Xns9397C17B49692jimmaureenrogers@204.127.36.1>
NNTP-Posting-Host: netlab.cs.rpi.edu
X-Original-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 02:30:22 -0700
X-Submission-Address: c++-submit@netlab.cs.rpi.edu
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.lang.c++.moderated
	iQBVAwUAPuhVhEHMCo9UcraBAQHHLwH+KFjv5Z4Ag25ikVg1GN5YStcxjT0blz7q
	MU3ZvSy/20jPLghJPNd7tdak6Or0bCaLw6RCKlg5h0qIr4vWIIvMCA==
	=WdG9
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39042 comp.lang.c++.moderated:68213
Date: 2003-06-12T06:27:20-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"James Rogers" <jimmaureenrogers@att.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9397C17B49692jimmaureenrogers@204.127.36.1...
> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail@moderncppdesign.com> wrote
in
>  > That's deep. I bet a ton of problems would have not existed through
the
>  > years if C (or at least C++) would have required:
>  >
>  > int i = uninitialized;
>  >
>  > instead of:
>  >
>  > int i;
>  >
>  > to define an uninitialized variable, and would have defaulted to
>  > zero-initialization in the latter case.
>
> Interesting. Do you think the fundamental safety problem in C code
> is ininitialized integers? What about memory leaks, de-referencing
> null pointers, and array bounds violations?

I was mentioning that just to mention a simple language design decision
that's a no-brainer to implement, yet which imho has a great impact
because
of the psychological issue you mentioned. The others are also important,
but
not as trivial to implement and support without making performance
tradeoffs.


Andrei



      [ Send an empty e-mail to c++-help@netlab.cs.rpi.edu for info ]
      [ about comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: do this! ]