From: Simon Wright on 30 Jun 2010 01:08 "Randy Brukardt" <randy(a)rrsoftware.com> writes: > This is exactly why I'm not much interested in SPARK itself: because > it forces programs back into the style that I originally learned for > Fortran IV in 1976: no dynamic allocation, no dynamic calls, no > exceptions -- no interest! I'm interested in what SPARK brings to the > table in proof capabilities, but I see no reason to give up 3/4rds of > Ada to get it. Complete agreement here!
From: stefan-lucks on 30 Jun 2010 04:17 On Tue, 29 Jun 2010, Randy Brukardt wrote: > Returning to the dark ages of programming (that is BE - Before Exceptions) > and reintroducing all of the problems of early C code just because of > inadequate tools seems like a horrible step backwards to me. I agree that error returns in code that isn't statically checked is a first-class flight into the world of severe errors and bugs. But for SPARK, if a subprogram can return an error code and you forget to handle the error code, SPARK will remind you -- your program will not pass the static verification. So the kind of errors introduced by error returns can easily be avoided in SPARK. So long Stefan -- ------ Stefan Lucks -- Bauhaus-University Weimar -- Germany ------ Stefan dot Lucks at uni minus weimar dot de ------ I love the taste of Cryptanalysis in the morning! ------
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Prev: More Ada in Cryptography. Next: What Ada can do for Cryptography. |