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: 109fba,98ad5b2a2cd88a53
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,98ad5b2a2cd88a53
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Gautier.DeMontmollin@maths.unine.ch
Subject: Re: Ada or C++ acting 'correctly' here?
Date: 1999/02/27
Message-ID: <ssHFvpV7d3X2@nedcu4>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 449356352
References: <7b8c7u$sj1@drn.newsguy.com>
Organization: University of Neuchatel, Switzerland
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++
Date: 1999-02-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> compare these 2 little programs, do same thing, one in C++
> and one in Ada. The C++ program compiles Ok, but result is
> negative, the Ada program refused to compile:

(...)
> {
>   cout<<(500000000*7);
>   return 0;
> }

(...)
>   begin
>    Put( 500000000*7 );
>   end Test_Multi;

(...)
> Now. Which would you consider the correct language behaviour?
> (same machine, Pentium pro, Linux.

This could be a bright example of how a strong-typed language
helps you finding errors already at compile time (here: a 32-bit
overflow). If accepted by the compiler, such a bug, lost in a large
program, could take days to locate! 

-- 
Gautier