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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,c4cb2c432feebd9d X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,c4cb2c432feebd9d X-Google-Thread: 101deb,15c6ed4b761968e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1094ba,gid101deb,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:34:02 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:29:29 -0400 From: Jeffrey Creem User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1 Subject: Re: Ada vs Fortran for scientific applications References: <0ugu4e.4i7.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <%P_cg.155733$eR6.26337@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <6H9dg.10258$S7.9150@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <1hfv5wb.1x4ab1tbdzk7eN%nospam@see.signature> <2006052509454116807-gsande@worldnetattnet> <1kzktalo9krea$.z8n9wev45xct$.dlg@40tude.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.147.74.171 X-Trace: sv3-mO8yo7mcQVTTNVBhINxMd1CzkKl/CtwxtdgBeQavqSwIJNTqvsUa1Bc16iBW/UzApmLNeA2S1ftyion!M4dg9heWUMd6NMr9srq+0UhD05TNRmuAZbGgUmawZUWtAZlCLvnOJ0DIxOrOJi04a0IDHXfnVXaa!PIc= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5634 comp.lang.fortran:11965 comp.lang.pl1:2001 Date: 2006-07-11T21:29:29-04:00 List-Id: adaworks@sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Jeffrey Creem" wrote in message > news:ghfco3-4am.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com... > >>adaworks@sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>>"robin" 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.