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: fa705,4e5700f5f17e49f4
X-Google-Attributes: gidfa705,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,18a09885d036772
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: f66ab,c2ed41f6f9544612
X-Google-Attributes: gidf66ab,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Is this ground dead? Also, info on Mach that's more recent
Date: 1998/01/19
Message-ID: <dewar.885258001@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 317520882
References: <69rdmb$j29$1@encore.ece.cmu.edu>
 <199801191517.QAA00894@basement.replay.com> <6a0351$i53@nike.volvo.se>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 885258266 25365 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.os.mach,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-01-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Peter says

<<Checking at compile time is to put a bucket under the hole
instead of fixing the leak!

Typechecking done by the compiler is (IMHO) the wrong place.
It should be done at link time (or load time) .

Typechecking at compile time will among other things create
awful code at those times where typechecking is not wanted.
(like printf() ) and does not really prevent one from
screwing up arguments under all circumstances.
>>

Peter must I guess be a C programmer with very little imagination as
to what can and cannot be done by type checking. It is of course
perfectly possible to do thorough type checking at compile time (there
are many languages which show this, e.g. Algol-68 if you want to look
at structural typing, or Ada if you want to look at a more elaborate
typing scheme.

Of course type checking at compile time does not generate awful code?
What on earth are you talking about? The whole point of type checking
at compile time is that it generates NO CODE AT ALL!

As for printf, it is perfectly possible to design a formatted print
interface that is type safe, and no less efficient than printf, indeed
one generally would expect a formatted print facility to generate much
BETTER code than printf, precisely because printf has to do runtime
type checking by its very nature.

Peter, you have got things amazingly upside down here. It is almost
incredible that you can have things so precisely wrong! You really
should broaden your horizons and learn a little bit more about other
programming languages!