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,a00006d3c4735d70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-09 14:00:20 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems Date: 09 Jan 2004 17:00:19 -0500 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <4r4qvvoo21a01nderfn4us3iv468vqas0m@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pip1-5.std.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1073685619 32702 192.74.137.185 (9 Jan 2004 22:00:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:00:19 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4270 Date: 2004-01-09T17:00:19-05:00 List-Id: Hyman Rosen writes: > Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote: > > No. I'm against over-emphasising of "purity" for functions on the basis of > > analogy with functions in mathematics. > > This is the worst mistake in computing that is made by people who are really > smart. They get so caught up on their analogies and metaphors that they forget > that programming is not the analogous object. It is its own very unique form > of expression, and treating it as if it were exactly something else leads to > error and inconvenience. You see the same sort of thing in object-oriented > programming debates, not just in Ada with respect to functions with in/out > parameters. The way Eiffel was ruined by covariance is another example. I think I see what you're saying, but I don't understand the point about Eiffel. Please explain. - Bob