Re: Ada vs Fortran for scientific applications

[Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com>]

adaworks@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> "Jeffrey Creem" <jeff@thecreems.com> wrote in message 
> news:ghfco3-4am.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com...
> 
>>adaworks@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>
>>>"robin" <robin_v@bigpond.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:z9Dsg.2740$tE5.2374@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Compilers can check for uninitialized variables during compilation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>True.  In fact, Ada compilers issue a warning for any variable
>>>that is used before a value is assigned to it.    If a parameter is
>>>included in a method (function/procedure/subroutine) and never
>>>referenced, a warning is issued.
>>
>>Which LRM section requires that? (Since "Ada compilers" do it, I assume it is 
>>a requirement of the LRM?) Since I'd like to have it removed or ammended to 
>>require meaningful operation of pragma suppress warnings.
>>
> 
> Notice that I used the word "warning."    An Ada compiler can detect a lot
> of information due to very nature of the language.   In fact, one of the design
> goals of Ada is to detect the maximum number of errors as early in the
> development process as possible.   Consider the following code:
> 

I noticed that you said "Warning". I also noticed that you said "Ada 
compilers". Not some Ada compilers, or compiler X or GNAT. One can only 
say "Ada compilers" do something in comparison to other compilers if it 
is a requirement of the language. Now, to be fair, half of the 
discussions in usenet say things like "Ada doesn't" or "C has a 
function" when what they really mean is that some compiler that they 
used did something.

stuff deleted...and then

> Ada quite a bit are happy to have a language which provides the maximum
> of information we need to avoid making foolish mistakes. This may not be the
> case with other languages, but it is the case with Ada.
> 
> Richard Riehle

Actually, I use it all the time. In fact, it is the only thing I program 
in. While I agree that I usually like extra information, I can certainly 
say that the quality, frequency and quantity of false positives for 
these warnings varies quite a bit from vendor to vendor with the rate of 
false positives being so high on some compilers as to render the warning 
useless.

Again, probably not different than any other language but the lack of a 
standardized way of suppressing specific warnings is certainly a pain 
when one is trying to have a single common code base that compiles 
without warning across 4 or 5 architectures and vendors. Going in and 
adding a few hundred := 0 everplace to make one or two of the chatty 
ones quiet is not something that can always be done when a project is 
far along it its lifecycle.

The key point here is that this discussion, like most other language 
comparison discussions has degraded into a comparison of implementations 
while asserting that it is a comparison of languages.