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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b8effe21a2a8e1cb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: aaro@iki.fi (Aaro Koskinen) Subject: Re: An interesting object lesson (Ada vs C) Date: 1998/04/27 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 347907877 References: Organization: University of Helsinki Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-04-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Recently during one of my classes (on microprocessor architecture, where > I asked them to do tests on some particular aspect of MP performance), I > received the message below from a student who really knows what he is > doing, and got completely stumped, to the point, where, as you will see > from the message, he was sure he had found a gcc or Pentium bug. These > kind of dangers that come from using an untyped language waste a huge > amount of time. Needless to say if the student had used Ada, he would > have saved himself a lot of time. Perhaps, however this error would have been detected by using correct compiler options. Apparently, the student has not been taught how to compile C programs with gcc, or he has been taught wrong... This is a good example of badly chosen default options of a compiler (or any other tool). I can't think of any good reason why compiler should omit warnings, or allow the use of non-language extensions, or omit run-time checks enforced by the language, unless the user explicitly wants it. -- Aaro Koskinen, aaro@iki.fi, http://www.iki.fi/aaro