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: 103376,54889de51045a215 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-19 19:02:51 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.litech.org!news-xfer.cox.net!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny03.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031008 Thunderbird/0.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: += in ada References: <3F7316F7.219F@mail.ru> <17cd177c.0310010606.52da88f3@posting.google.com> <3F8BC74F.2CFBFF37@0.0> <1066312000.671303@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1066322883.139702@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3F8F372D.9040801@comcast.net> <3F8F4559.50306@noplace.com> <3F92BB1A.202@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <3F92BB1A.202@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:02:51 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.84.228.90 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny03.gnilink.net 1066615371 162.84.228.90 (Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:02:51 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:02:51 EDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1163 Date: 2003-10-20T02:02:51+00:00 List-Id: Robert I. Eachus wrote: > No. Efficiency on the level you are talking about, in Ada, is something > we delegate to the compiler. We want software engineers, safety > engineers, and security experts to be able to worry about much trickier > stuff. Do you want your security experts searching code for potential > buffer overruns, or looking for covert timing channels? In Ada, we > prefer to leave the stuff that machines can do best to machines. This statement means that we get to talk about the Ariane 5 again. If you recall, this involved careful case-by-case analysis of every aritmetic statement in a module to determine which ones could have their range checks disabled, in order to free up a few more machine cycles. No "delegation to the compiler" there. We can also bring up protected types. Apparently the real-time community felt that leaving efficiency to the compiler and using rendezvous was not acceptable.