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,FREEMAIL_FROM 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!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!lon-transit.news.telstra.net!lon-in.news.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "robin" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1 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> Subject: Re: Ada vs Fortran for scientific applications X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 02:58:27 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 144.134.49.90 X-Complaints-To: abuse@bigpond.net.au X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1148612307 144.134.49.90 (Fri, 26 May 2006 12:58:27 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:58:27 EST Organization: BigPond Internet Services Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4481 comp.lang.fortran:10274 comp.lang.pl1:1727 Date: 2006-05-26T02:58:27+00:00 List-Id: "Gordon Sande" wrote in message news:2006052509454116807-gsande@worldnetattnet... > I am a big fan of subscript checking and undefined variable checking. > I have found that all of the errors that these aids have found have been > in parts of my programs that I believed to be free of such errors > because I had looked hard at them some time before. Either I had > not done a good job of looking or the assumptions underlying the look > had changed. > > That seems to be the nature of the beast. > > I can avoid (usually!) the trival bugs. I like getting help once the > bug is not trivial. (Maybe that is a definition of trivial.) > > Fine grained control would have been of no use, and in fact harmful, > if I had tried to use it. My take is it makes a great checklist feature > that may help get past "desired feature checklists" but is otherwise > not of any real benefit. The check is great but fine grained control > is not. > > > Do user defined numerical types have restricted bounds too? > > That is a Pascal-like feature that I miss in Fortran. So I do my own > checking. Because of my problem domain I have to be proactive in checking > parameter values on entry to new procedures even if the invocation is > from one that has already checked. The buzz word is programming by contract > if I have read the programming fashion of the day rags. > > How many Ada systems can match the undefined variable checking of the > old WatFor or the current Salford CheckMate or the Lahey/Fujitsu > global checking? It seems to be a thing associated with places that > run student cafteria computing on mainframes. Not much used anymore. > There was a similar student checkout PL/I from Cornell if I recall > correctly. That's right. It was called "PL/C". > > The adverse consequences of exceeding bounds can be seen to > > outweigh the (usually) modest costs in code size and performance that > > even mature code should ship with checks enabled, IMO. > > Compilers generally should be shipped with the 'failsafe' > > options on by default.