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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed-hp2.netcologne.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Ada vs Eiffel - Ada programmer approach
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: 
 <405b5054-4c8f-4e16-9ea8-503a9b9f976e@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
  <4A19765C.608@obry.net>
 <8105b65f-4de9-4653-b43a-d55ee33f072d@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
 <130yh6dv3l1lf$.1729u4tpolgwi.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4a1c2652$0$30220$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <1r1ho3wqsjncb.1p3p7qe2qcqmw.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4a1c2dfe$0$30236$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 21:52:58 +0200
Message-ID: <uw2akaqgnepe$.1i0g9dauyj3x3.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 May 2009 21:52:58 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: e92cde2f.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=IHB2:S>LaeRaoembcbF;DQic==]BZ:af^4Fo<]lROoRQ^YC2XCjHcbYH1H@Tml5BL\DNcfSJ;bb[UIRnRBaCd<M^T6NQQB3U^RVO\XkHJYRn3P
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6028
Date: 2009-05-26T21:52:58+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 26 May 2009 19:59:26 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov schrieb:
> 
>> There is no loop since "contract is satisfied" is not a variable. Otherwise
>> you cannot design "by contract", obviously.
> 
> The Eiffel answer is that yes, you can do that because
> in order to get anything done, assertion checking must
> not happen at times.  That's a reasonable design, because
> there is no practical alternative. ;-)

Confusing things? (:-))

>> Ada's static typing system and SPARK do it right.
> 
> SPARK imposes limitations that are not present when employing
> DbC.

More checks you want to do more language limitations you need. Nothing is
for free.

> SPARK cannot replace DbC, or improve it, and vice versa,
> basically because DbC (not used as static assertions only) and
> SPARK are largely incommensurable.

Nope, the point is not how many checks, it is about consistency of checks.
SPARK does it consistently, Eiffel does not.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de