Article View: comp.lang.modula2
Article #2632Re: Report on defect in M2 vs C (Was Modula-2, Modula-3, C or C++)
From: Bob Kitzberger
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 02:57
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 02:57
16 lines
1163 bytes
1163 bytes
Viet-Trung Luu (vluu@lagrange.uwaterloo.ca) wrote: : So while I don't necessarily agree with his comment, I have to say that : having bounds checking by default would be unreasonable And I think that most developers of safety-critical software would disagree with you. Get the software working right, and then remove the checks if you must! What's so bloody controversial about that? Are any other engineering professions so flippant about safety and reliability? -- Bob Kitzberger Rational Software Corporation rlk@rational.com
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<461qec$a50@rational.rational.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!rational.com!rlkReferences:
<Pine.SUN.3.91.951013205557.12001K-100000@lagrange.uwaterloo.ca>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!rational.com!rlk From: rlk@pelton (Bob Kitzberger) Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.modula3,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Report on defect in M2 vs C (Was Modula-2, Modula-3, C or C++) Followup-To: comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.modula3,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada Date: 18 Oct 1995 02:57:16 GMT Organization: Rational Software Corporation Message-ID: <461qec$a50@rational.rational.com> References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951013205557.12001K-100000@lagrange.uwaterloo.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: pelton.rational.com X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]