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: a07f3367d7,b44a149ee4e73a99 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!panix!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Runtime check : what about you ? Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 20:29:29 -0400 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1308356969 6002 192.74.137.71 (18 Jun 2011 00:29:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 00:29:29 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix) Cancel-Lock: sha1:YkKbeDMrGoOAw1QC3D9y/SrOZA8= Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19943 Date: 2011-06-17T20:29:29-04:00 List-Id: "Randy Brukardt" writes: > I personally believe in the seatbelt analogy: "turning off checks in > released software is like using seatbelts in the driveway and then taking > them off when you reach the highway". For me, this also applies to > assertions and contracts as well -- I only turn these things off if they are > tremendously expensive (in which case I usually remove them permanently). I > know there are others (like Bob Duff) who think this analogy is silly. No, I don't think it's silly. I think it applies in some cases, but not others. I think turning checks on or off is a difficult engineering decision that should depend on various factors. - Bob