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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b30bd69fa8f63cb2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-14 07:39:06 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.uchicago.edu!yellow.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!newsfeed!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!4.24.21.153!chcgil2-snh1.gtei.net!news.bbnplanet.com!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: C bug of the day
Date: 14 Jun 2003 09:39:04 -0500
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <ut8c6sqLjD15@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <1054751321.434656@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <memo.20030605193115.9141A@brangdon.madasafish.com>
 <d6652001.0306100323.338a2a1c@posting.google.com>
 <bc4n70$fei5u$1@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de>
 <ba162549.0306111431.366b59ba@posting.google.com>
 <d6652001.0306120623.151b7fa3@posting.google.com>
 <Xns9398C982B7580jimmaureenrogers@204.127.36.1>
 <d6652001.0306130724.1d0f35db@posting.google.com>
 <x7vllw52nmd.fsf@pushface.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1055601443 26400 192.135.80.34 (14 Jun 2003
 14:37:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 14:37:23 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39172
Date: 2003-06-14T09:39:04-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <x7vllw52nmd.fsf@pushface.org>, Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:
> kanze@gabi-soft.fr writes:
> 
>> Note that while we have been speaking here about safety, no one has
>> mentionned readability.  And IMHO, this is the most important single
>> feature of safety: a well run code review will catch many more
>> errors than the best compiler, but for a code review to be
>> effective, the readers have to be able to understand what you have
>> written.
> 
> Different kinds of errors, I'd think. I would prefer not to review code
> until it compiles cleanly (I know there are other approaches).

For one thing, fixing the kinds of errors that the compiler catches
might introduce the kinds of errors the humans catch.  Doing many
retries of the compiler checking is much cheaper than doing many of
the human checking.