From: sturlamolden on
On 3 Aug, 01:14, Martin Gregorie <mar...(a)address-in-sig.invalid>

> Bottom line: All this would still have happened regardless of the
> programming language used.

I am quite sure C and Fortran makes it unlikely for an unhandled
exception to trigger the autodestruct sequence. But it's nice to know
when flying that modern avionics is programmed in a language where
this is possible.


From: Mark Lawrence on
On 03/08/2010 00:03, Aahz wrote:
> In article<f9e652d6-3945-4c18-92f3-b85b994feb0b(a)>,
> Peter<peter.milliken(a)> wrote:
>> On Aug 3, 7:42=A0am, Mark Lawrence<breamore...(a)> wrote:
>>> On 02/08/2010 00:08, candide wrote:
>>> I can't understand why any serious programmer mentions C++. As soon as I
>>> read it, I have to rush either to the kitchen to find a bowl to throw up
>>> in, or head for the toilet so I can talk to the great white telephone.
>> With you there Mark - IMO C++ is an abortion that should never have
>> seen the light of day. The idea of experimenting with creating an OO
>> language by extending C wasn't such a bad idea for a "play thing" (by
>> Stroustrop) but the fact that it somehow escaped from the Lab and
>> people picked it up and ran with it on a commercial basis is just
>> plain wrong!

Haven't been able to read this properly as the stomach has been shaking
too much to control the mouse and/or arrow keys/page up/down etc. Hum,
marks out of 10, 1.649072354865927**trillions. For the cryptographers,
is this a decent random number?

Kindest regards.

Mark Lawrence

From: Mark Lawrence on
On 03/08/2010 00:14, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:54:52 -0700, sturlamolden wrote:
>> On 3 Aug, 00:27, Paul Rubin<no.em...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> Certain folks in the functional-programming community consider OO to be
>>> a 1980's or 1990's approach that didn't work out, and that what it was
>>> really trying to supply was polymorphism. C++ programs these days
>>> apparently tend to use template-based generics rather than objects and
>>> inheritance for that purpose.
>> It avoids virtual function calls at the expense of unreable code and
>> errors that are nearly impossible to trace. It seems many thinks this is
>> a good idea because Microsoft did this with ATL and WTL. There are also
>> those who thinks template metaprogramming is a good idea. But who uses a
>> C++ compiler to dumb to unroll a for loop? In my experience, trying to
>> outsmart a modern compiler is almost always a bad idea.
>>> I have the impression that Ada has an undeservedly bad rap because of
>>> its early implementations and its origins in military bureaucracy.
>> It is annyingly verbose, reminds me of Pascal (I hate the looks of it),
>> and is rumoured to produce slow bloatware.
>> And don't forget Ariane 5 ;)
> This had nothing to do with Ada per se and everything to do with
> shortcuts:
> - re-use of an Ariane 4 component without changing its parameters
> to match the Ariane 5 flight profile
> - not removing Ariane 4-only code intended to handle launch holds
> and not used at all in Ariane 5
> - a programming fault that allowed an exception code to be sent
> to another component as if it was valid data.
> Inadequate testing allowed all these to be flown without finding the
> errors.
> Bottom line: All this would still have happened regardless of the
> programming language used. However, don't just listen to me: read the
> final report on Ariane 501 here:
A bug is a bug is a bug?

Except in my code. Never written a bug in my life. Cross my heart and
hope to die. Of course I'm lying. :)

Kindest regards.

Mark Lawrence.

From: sturlamolden on
On 3 Aug, 01:37, Mark Lawrence <breamore...(a)> wrote:

> A bug is a bug is a bug?

According to Grace Hopper, a bug might be a moth, in which case the
best debugger is a pair of forceps.
From: Christian Heimes on
Am 03.08.2010 01:03, schrieb Aahz:

I don't understand why the URL contains the word "joke". Every word is
true. Hell yeah! :)