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,a83c46b54bacb7f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Hyman Rosen Subject: Re: JOB:Sr. SW Engineers Wanted-Fortune 500 Co Date: 2000/02/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 580387772 Sender: hymie@calumny.jyacc.com References: <3894A823.92EC75D1@bondtechnologies.com> <874b7r$mj9$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38967537_1@news.jps.net> X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com X-Trace: news.panix.com 949421525 10188 209.49.126.226 (1 Feb 2000 16:12:05 GMT) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Feb 2000 16:12:05 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-02-01T16:12:05+00:00 List-Id: "Mike Silva" writes: > This is a silly strawman, since nobody (at least, nobody who wants to be > taken seriously) ever makes such extreme claims. It's all a matter of > increasing the odds, and both the C language and the C culture invite buggy > code (sad to say, I've written my share). Every C programmer should perform > the eye-opening exercise of determining how many C bugs they encounter would > not have been possible, or would have been quickly spotted, in Ada. I would assume that for safety-critical code, the development process is such that these errors would be found if they were present. After all, Ada's error checks can help only in the development process, not once the pacemaker is installed, so the code would have to be carefully checked to make sure that no exceptions would actually be triggered. This is the same process the C code would go through.