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: fac41,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 1008e3,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 108717,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: 
 gide91fe56a56,gida07f3367d7,gid8d81cdf253,gid5b1e799cdb,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!novia!news-out.readnews.com!postnews3.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.modula3,comp.programming
Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
References: <h3sln0$rhm$2@news.eternal-september.org>
 <4BA8BA91.4050905@cherrystonesoftware.com> <4BA8F677.3090206@adalog.fr>
 <4BA8FD54.8020200@cherrystonesoftware.com>
 <4ba9005a$0$15857$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>
 <5a11a223-32a1-4b82-ae2c-cba867140636@u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
From: Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net>
Date: 23 Mar 2010 13:34:26 -0700
Message-ID: <w9zwrx2kca5.fsf@zipcon.net>
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Organization: The Zip Connection (zipcon.net)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69aa89db.news.zipcon.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=P[5lACjeoXd_8Tb1O14ZMmU>Dm5d6:E6mCgZSOIE\Z]o6i3K@k4DWOa<2IBkV^g4flC^8ec2g_c6a
X-Complaints-To: abuse@zipcon.net
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.eiffel:527 comp.lang.ada:9712
 comp.lang.modula3:147 comp.programming:14647
Date: 2010-03-23T13:34:26-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

jpwoodruff <jpwoodruff@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mar 23, 10:54=A0am, Pascal Obry <pas...@obry.net> wrote:
> 
> <jpw removed discussion of bounds checking>
> 
> > But anyway this is not even an issue. For performance you can always
> > remove the checks using the right compiler option. Then you have the
> > best of both worlds. During development the checks are really helpful,
> > in production you remove them.
> >
> 
> I hope I'm not the only old-timer who remembers:
> 
> "This is the case of the sailor who wears his life jacket while
> rigging his boat,
> then leaves it ashore when he goes sailing."

Not the only one.  How many viruses spread by buffer overflow exploits
that would be impossible in a bounds-checked language?

-- Patrick