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: 103376,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 109fba,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid109fba,gid115aec,gidf43e6,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!proxad.net!193.252.118.146.MISMATCH!news.wanadoo.fr!news.wanadoo.fr!not-for-mail Sender: obry@PASCAL Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Class hierarchy of exceptions (Ada, C++) References: <4229bad9$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <1110032222.447846.167060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <871xau9nlh.fsf@insalien.org> <3SjWd.103128$Vf.3969241@news000.worldonline.dk> <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org> <1110052142.832650@athnrd02> <1110284070.410136.205090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <395uqaF5rhu2mU1@individual.net> <1111607633.301232.62490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <87oed6wvyx.fsf_-_@insalien.org> <1111876424.201726@athnrd02> <874qewvycq.fsf@insalien.org> <1112011700.94455@athnrd02> From: Pascal Obry Organization: Home - http://www.obry.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 Date: 28 Mar 2005 18:02:19 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Mar 2005 18:02:25 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.120.24.236 X-Trace: 1112025745 news.wanadoo.fr 3136 82.120.24.236:3846 X-Complaints-To: abuse@wanadoo.fr Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10074 comp.lang.c++:47614 comp.realtime:1779 comp.software-eng:5414 Date: 2005-03-28T18:02:25+02:00 List-Id: Ioannis Vranos writes: > > Pascal Obry once made an interesting remark: what is important for the > > safety of a language is not what it allows but what it forbids. > > > You can't protect a bad programmer from doing bad programming, unless you > forbid him to continue programming. :-) But you can propose a easy path that is safer. In this case there is lot of more chance than the programmer will choose it. Easier is always appreciated :) And a language must make it harder to do unsafe thing, like deallocation on Ada. You have a instanciate Unchecked_Deallocation. The meaning is clear and nobody can do that without noticing. As Ludovic I appreciate a lot the help of the compiler and never try to fight it. If it tells me there is something wrong I really have to have a look and yes I'm building using all the warnings and checks on. I even have all the GNAT style checks activated. I don't want a language that let me do the same thing with hundredth ways among which there is only one safe path. I'm not a gamer, fiddling with a piece of code hours to find the good way is not what I'm looking for :) > So if you like to be as much constrained as possible, I think VB is much > better for this. Or even Logo. Plus it provides a turtle to help you. You are really trying hard to fail to understand. All this is a trade off. We all need lot of power (what VB or Logo won't give to us) but the power must be *controlled* and it must come with a well defined *semantic*. Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://www.obry.org --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" --| --| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595