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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a00006d3c4735d70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-07 19:21:43 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news2.telebyte.nl!news.completel.fr!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 06:32:05 +0300 (MSK) Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1073532014 10717 80.67.180.195 (8 Jan 2004 03:20:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 03:20:14 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: ; from Robert A Duff at 07 Jan 2004 18:35:12 -0500 X-Mailer: Mail/@ [v2.44 MSDOS] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4194 Date: 2004-01-08T06:32:05+03:00 Robert A Duff wrote: > Ada functions are simply a procedure with a different calling syntax. >>From a compiler writer's viewpoint - perhaps yes. But certainly not from programmer's viewpoint - if that programmer has and uses a brain (that is, not just eyes and fingers). There is a well-known fact that human brain tends to differentiate between result-oriented and "good next step" approaches, and this has nothing specifically mathematical. Anyway, returning to programming, I suppose you will not claim that there is absolutely no difference (except syntax) between functional and procedural programming languages. > IMHO, both kinds of subprograms should have been called "procedures". I think that these both kinds of subprograms are already called "subprograms", so there is no need for another common name for them. Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia