Re: Report on defect in M2 vs C (Was Modula-2, Modula-3, C or C++)

Article View: comp.lang.modula2

Article #2914

#2914

From: "Mark Morgan Lloyd "
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 17:13

16 lines
958 bytes

> Let's say that an interactive debugger is extremely useful, then.

Yes, but an effective way to prove correctness of specification and 
derived code would be even better. Unfortunately, I believe that our 
inherent analytical skills aren't up to the former, and most 
languages/platforms are inadequate for the latter.

> Borland have had such a scheme on PCs for a while.

And Logitech have had one for very much longer.

Mark Morgan Lloyd
mark_tbu@cix.compulink.co.uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or 
colleagues]

Technical Details

Message-ID: <DGrBuy.KG3@cix.compulink.co.uk>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!cix.compulink.co.uk!usenet

References: <46861u$748@ubszh.fh.zh.ubs.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!cix.compulink.co.uk!usenet
From: mark_tbu@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Mark Morgan Lloyd ")
Subject: Re: Report on defect in M2 vs C (Was Modula-2, Modula-3, C or C++)
Message-ID: <DGrBuy.KG3@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Organization: KDG Mobrey Telemetry
References: <46861u$748@ubszh.fh.zh.ubs.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 17:13:46 GMT
X-News-Software: Ameol

Reply to Parent Message