Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!mcnc!ece-csc!ncrcae!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!pyramid!prls!mips!uday
From: uday@mips.UUCP (Uday Kurkure)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Wirth's "challenge" (overflows)
Message-ID: <939@gumby.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Nov-87 18:43:49 EST
Article-I.D.: gumby.939
Posted: Thu Nov 19 18:43:49 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Nov-87 15:18:12 EST
References: <1656@geac.UUCP> <863@winchester.UUCP> <197@m2.mfci.UUCP> <6777@apple.UUCP>
Lines: 29
Keywords: integeroverflow


>In article <931@gumby.UUCP> uday@mips.UUCP (Uday Kurkure) writes:
>
>[Me saying that Europeans seem to be more concerned with runtime checking.]
>
>>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.
>
>This is a pretty good example of what I mean.  ADA is embraced much more
>affectionately in Europe than it is in the US, I would claim (in fact,
>isn't it true that ADA's design was influenced heavily by Eurpeans???

You definitely have a point. Even, the chief designer of ANNA, Prof. Luckham
is European- English. I just wanted to point out that the run-time checking
has its place.


                                          ..Uday--

-- 
Disclaimer: My employer and me, have nothing to do with each other.
            It's a strictly business relationship.

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