Article View: comp.lang.modula2
Article #2624Re: Report on defect in M2 vs C (Was Modula-2, Modula-3, C or C++)
From: Viet-Trung Luu
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 02:48
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 02:48
19 lines
1380 bytes
1380 bytes
On 13 Oct 1995, Dale Stanbrough wrote: > I once asked Mr P.J.Plauger at a conference in Sydney 1990 if it was > ever expected that the C langauge standard would mandate bounds > checking as the _default_ value, just like in Ada. His answer was > > "Well look how much of a success Ada is!" > > Would it right in saying he overstepped the bounds? Hmmm... probably. However, he does have something resembling a point. The philosophy of C has never been to rigorously check everything... it's emphasis has always been more towards speed. So while I don't necessarily agree with his comment, I have to say that having bounds checking by default would be unreasonable (OTOH, it'd be nice to have bounds checking available). - Trung
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<Pine.SUN.3.91.951013205557.12001K-100000@lagrange.uwaterloo.ca>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!lagrange.uwaterloo.ca!vluuShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.modula3,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!lagrange.uwaterloo.ca!vluu From: Viet-Trung Luu <vluu@lagrange.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: Report on defect in M2 vs C (Was Modula-2, Modula-3, C or C++) Sender: news@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (news spool owner) Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951013205557.12001K-100000@lagrange.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <45l2oi$oji@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 02:48:04 GMT Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Nntp-Posting-Host: lagrange.uwaterloo.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Organization: University of Waterloo