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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d901a50a5adfec3c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,9f0bf354542633fd X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public From: Corey Minyard Subject: Re: Fortran or Ada? Date: 1998/09/23 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 394093836 Sender: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com References: <36068E73.F0398C54@meca.polymtl.ca> <6u8r5o$aa4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: Wonderforce Research Reply-To: minyard@acm.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jeff Templon writes: > > 2) you have to be more careful since with a big language, it is > easier to make a mistake in writing the program which turns out > to be valid syntax for some feature you didn't know about. This is not my experience with Ada, but it is with C, a much smaller language. I've only done this once in Ada (Putting a * instead of a ** in a type declaration). Only God knows how many times I've done it in C; I probably can't count that high. It also seemed easy in old Fortran to write code with unintended consequences. I think this has much more to do with the good human engineering design of the language and less to do with the language size. -- Corey Minyard Internet: minyard@acm.org Work: minyard@nortel.ca UUCP: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com