Re: 'Cyclone', a safer C--reinventing the wheel

["AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz>]

"chris.danx" <chris.danx@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bIXK7.6588$aW3.919092@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> "Ehud Lamm" <mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
> news:9tfrtg$rkl$1@news.huji.ac.il...
> > chris.danx <chris.danx@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:RsyK7.1377$6W6.439742@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...

I wasn't going to join this thread, but since you've highlighted the
*persistant*
below I couldn't resist. Well, you see, according to the Webster's
dictionary
there is no such word, period. The best approximation would be *persistEnt*
(pardon my use of the caps). And the whole point is that you or I can, may
and will make mistakes, but it's up to the compiler to catch at *least* the
simple ones like that.

> That is not what i'm complaining about, it's the *persistant* C bashing
(or
> C decendant bashing) in this group, which rears it's head now and again.
> I'm no fan of C (for some reason I can't program in it, no matter what I
> do), but bashing it all the time is pointless.

Not quite that pointless as you were kind enough to show.

>  What happens if a language comes about
> that has the superior gains (in respect to development time, maintainance
> costs, program correctness, etc) compared to Ada?

That would be just great.