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,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,70016ed51014902d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Warning: Flame Bait Date: 1996/12/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 201703297 references: <01bbdcb5$7500ab30$24af1486@pc-phw> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-12-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Bob Duff says "Note also that many of the issues we're talking about have nothing to do with particular machines. For example, order of parameter evaluation. Ada says "arbitrary order", in the hopes that compilers can generate more efficient code. Java says "left to right", putting portability ahead of efficiency. Maybe the Java designers would argue that the efficiency hit is small, or maybe they would argue that portability is essential, and efficiency less important." And of course the argument on the other side is that, especially in Ada which is not full of nasty side effect operators like ++, only very peculiar code would ever notice the difference, and it seems a shame to take an efficiency hit to promote portability of code that should never be written in the first place! In fact the Ada rule encourages maintainable code by clearly declaring that weird dependence on side effects is unacceptable. Making badly written non-maintainable code portable is NOT an Ada design priority.