Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!microsoft!jamesth
From: jamesth@microsoft.UUCP (James THIELE)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: problems/risks due to programming language, stories requested
Summary: Ada can be dangerous, too
Message-ID: <53625@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 19 Mar 90 17:47:44 GMT
References: <159@uninet.vbo.dec.com>
Reply-To: jamesth@microsoft.UUCP (James THIELE)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 30

In article <159@uninet.vbo.dec.com> vanavermaet@kerber.dec.com writes:
>
>with standard_disclaimer; use standard_disclaimer;
>
>In article <1819@awdprime.UUCP>, jaws@chibacity.austin.ibm.com writes...
>>This kind flexiability is what makes C so powerfull, and dangerous. 
>>You have know what you are doing to do it.
>
>I think this is a very sensible remark.
>
>O.K., the semantics are well-defined (as may people have pointed out),
>but it still IS dangerous. That (IMHO) is a very important factor (and to me, a
>reason not to use C).
>
>Peter Van Avermaet

Are you implying that Ada is perfectly safe?  I can think of places
in Ada that are, at least in some sense, semantically well defined
but dangerous.

Tasking comes to mind - you must be very careful to use it correctly.

Generics (which I adore) can have some gorgeous pitfalls for the unwary.

In fact, while I think Hoare overstates his case in the famous article
where he suggests that Ada not be used in critical applications his
arguments against Ada shouldn't be casually dismissed.

James Thiele
uunet!microsoft!jamesth