Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ecn-pc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-pc!wdm
From: wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (William D Michael)
Newsgroups: net.arch,net.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What I miss... (really C, Ada, religion)
Message-ID: <393@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Oct-85 16:14:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecn-pc.393
Posted: Thu Oct  3 16:14:29 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Oct-85 06:17:01 EDT
References: <796@kuling.UUCP> <2580002@csd2.UUCP> <191@graffiti.UUCP> <568@unisoft.UUCP> <1777@orca.UUCP> <879@lll-crg.UUCP>
Reply-To: wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (William D Michael)
Organization: Electrical Engineering Department , Purdue University
Lines: 41
Xref: watmath net.arch:1850 net.lang.ada:371

In article <879@lll-crg.UUCP> brooks@lll-crg.UUCP (Eugene D. Brooks III) writes:
>Could we please keep this discussion in net.ada, net.politics or net.religion.

    I disagree, let's keep it here.  Sorry, but these issues tie in 
    very closely to architecture issues.

>
>I subscribed to net.ada for a month a year ago in apology to a ADA nut
>for posting the statement "ADA sucks" to the net.  There were a total of two
>articles on net.ada that month, which is proof enough that ADA is a language
>that is devoid if serious use.  

    The proof you cite seems to be just a bit weak.  The thousands of 
    programmers working with ADA are pretty good proof that it is here to
    stay.  That doesn't mean you have to like it.  

>The only people who like it are those who can't
>manage to write correct programs and need a crutch like subscript checking even
>in a production version of a code.
>
>If you program has a proof of correctness, and it checks its input data
>properly, it does not need range checks on subscripts.  Such checking only
>slows the computer down.  I don't have spare cycles for such a wast of time.
>REAL programmers don't need subscript checking, they write lint free code
>automatically.  Please leave your ADA hype on net.ada where no one is bothering
>to read it!

    Right -- soft errors (or hard ones for that matter) never happen once
    code reaches production.  Not to mention things like tasks over-
    writing other tasks data areas and things of that sort.  Admittedly,
    if these things happen you've got problems, but if I were the captain
    of a 747, I would rather have the autopilot tell me to take over because
    it detected a non-recoverable error and was shutting down, than
    to have it attempt a manuever that would fold the wings like tin foil. 

    In all seriousness, if you don't have the cycles to do
    the things you mention, get a faster processor - it's cheap insurance
    against alot of real world perils. 

----------


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com