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,b8effe21a2a8e1cb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: An interesting object lesson (Ada vs C)
Date: 1998/04/26
Message-ID: <dewar.893645616@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 347974578
References: <dewar.893600073@merv> <6hvpf2$77d$1@news.hal-pc.org>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 893646289 30503 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-04-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


<<In the C world, "really knows what he is doing" means "knows how to turn
the warnings on".  Do the student a favor and introduce him to lint and
-Wall.
>>

Yes, of course, but the point is that having to rely on warnings for such
very basic type consistency checking is *exactly* the weakness that this
example pointed out (if you think all C compilers come with such warnings,
you have been lucky :-).

Someone else complained at the use of the non-standard long double, true,
but it seems a pity that you *need* a non-standard extension to get at
a basic facility of the underlying architecture -- certainly not something
that is required in Ada!