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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: a new language, designed for safety !
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 21:32:08 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lmo38n$le7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <lmj8s6$hhp$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <3bf7907b-2265-4314-a693-74792df531d1@googlegroups.com>
 <wccha40e9zh.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 21:32:08 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="e458ff8b81bc0c159989eb0e36c6e372";
	logging-data="21959"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18BwK7Qp32MMhnNuRxoNhOjwGH3o0+dijY="
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (VMS/Multinet)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gcxTydAtVQe0r/JImrR0l6UVDQs=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:20135
Date: 2014-06-04T21:32:08+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2014-06-04, Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
> "Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> ...This is not surprising for the 1980s-vintage
>> Objective-C, back when Smalltalk was often held up as the ultimate
>> state-of-the-art in OO; Smalltalk had much the same fundamental
>> unsafety, due in turn much the same selector mechanisms as
>> Objective-C.
>
> Yeah, Objective-C is basically just Smalltalk tacked onto the side of C.
>
> But I wouldn't call it "unsafe" if you get a run-time error.
> To me, "unsafe" means "misuse can cause unpredictable behavior".
> Array indexing is safe in Ada (you get a run-time error if
> you go out of bounds), but unsafe in C (anything can happen
> if you go out of bounds).
>

To me, it's all about remaining in control when Bad Things Happen.

If you take a runtime error in a controlled manner (ie: Ada style) then
you remain in control. If you go out of bounds in C then you are no
longer in control of what happens next.

Compile time errors are preferred, but runtime errors are ok if you
cannot achieve that, _provided_ they happen in a controlled manner.

Swift is an interesting idea with some uses, but the real benefits
to our computing ecosystem will come when someone designs a plug in
replacement for C which can be used in all the environments which C
can currently be used in and which is easy enough for the typical C
programmer to learn.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world