Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!pyramid!prls!mips!uday
From: uday@mips.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Wirth's "challenge" (overflows)
Message-ID: <931@gumby.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Nov-87 20:23:41 EST
Article-I.D.: gumby.931
Posted: Wed Nov 18 20:23:41 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Nov-87 14:19:07 EST
References: <1656@geac.UUCP> <863@winchester.UUCP> <197@m2.mfci.UUCP> <6743@apple.UUCP>
Lines: 20
Keywords: integeroverflow, European attitudes
Summary: Runtime checking, European Attitudes

In article <6743@apple.UUCP>, bcase@apple.UUCP (Brian Case) writes:
> I am not trying to pigeon-hole people or sound negative in any
> way, but in general, I find that Europeans tend to have a real sympathy
> for run-time checking.  I can't name one American, off the top of my
> head, to whom I would attribute the same concern.  At least the concern
> would not, to me, be the distinguishing feature that, to me, it so often
> is in Europeans.

Runtime checking is inefficient. The issue is efficiency vs.reliability.
Wherever reliability is important, even Americans favor runtime
checking. For example, ANNA- specification and verification project
at Stanford. ANNA is a specification and verification language for Ada and
it is intended to check program correctness at runtime. A rumor has it
that the SDI software ( an American concern ) would be specified in ANNA.


                                         ..Uday-- 



uday@mips.com OR { ames, decwrl, prls, pyramid }!mips!uday