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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 1008e3,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 108717,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: 
 gida07f3367d7,gid8d81cdf253,gid5b1e799cdb,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!nf02.dk.telia.net!starscream.dk.telia.net!news.tele.dk!feed118.news.tele.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
To: "Patrick Scheible" <kkt@zipcon.net>
Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.modula3,comp.programming,comp.lang.java
References: <h3sln0$rhm$2@news.eternal-september.org>
 <4BA8BA91.4050905@cherrystonesoftware.com> <4BA8F677.3090206@adalog.fr>
 <4BA8FD54.8020200@cherrystonesoftware.com>
 <4ba9005a$0$15857$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>
 <w9zzl1ykcc5.fsf@zipcon.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:24:38 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: "Martin Krischik" <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>
Organization: Martin Krischik, Softwareentwicklung
Message-ID: <op.u916rclmz25lew@macpro-eth1.krischik.com>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.10 (MacIntel)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.236.173.67
X-Trace: news.sunsite.dk
 DXC=E\^gjGZ7PFRe3jRo4OW[0]YSB=nbEKnk[TL\TU_9UQm^IDiY_4:UK?Sd3N<Hj?FVI^>ai^>E:QM5T\dF5egYh5MQ4n`iLFcHeY\
X-Complaints-To: staff@sunsite.dk
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.eiffel:530 comp.lang.ada:9722
 comp.lang.modula3:150 comp.programming:14657
Date: 2010-03-24T07:24:38+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Am 23.03.2010, 21:33 Uhr, schrieb Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net>:

> Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.net> writes:

>> But anyway this is not even an issue. For performance you can always
>> remove the checks using the right compiler option. Then you have the
>> best of both worlds. During development the checks are really helpful,
>> in production you remove them.
>
> It's been said that this approach is like having lifeboats on an ocean
> liner while it is in sea trials, and then taking them out when it
> starts to carry passengers.

Right on. I was very disappointed then I read the details of Java's assert  
statement - if you just double click an executable jar file the assets are  
removed by the class loader :-( .

Regards

Martin

-- 
Martin Krischik