Re: Safety and power in languages

Roger Barnett <Roger@natron.demon.co.uk>
14 Feb 1996 21:29:19 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: Safety and power in languages salomon@silver.cs.umanitoba.ca (1996-02-09)
Re: Safety and power in languages truesoft!sw@uunet.uu.net (1996-02-09)
Re: Safety and power in languages mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (1996-02-12)
Re: Safety and power in languages fabre@gr.osf.org (Christian Fabre) (1996-02-13)
Re: Safety and power in languages eachus@spectre.mitre.org (1996-02-13)
Re: Safety and power in languages darius@phidani.be (Darius Blasband) (1996-02-13)
Re: Safety and power in languages Roger@natron.demon.co.uk (Roger Barnett) (1996-02-14)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Roger Barnett <Roger@natron.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 14 Feb 1996 21:29:19 -0500
Organization: Natron Software Maintenance Ltd
References: 96-01-116 96-02-057 96-02-107
Keywords: design, errors

mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:
> I have seen a number of reports showing that many, if not most,
> hard-to-trace bugs in C come from memory-reference problems - garbage
> pointers, overrunning subscripts, etc. Undoubtedly C++ improves this,
> but Ada is _designed_ to minimize the likelihood of it happening.


As is RTL/2 (designed way back in the early '70s by a team at ICI, all
compilers for this language require pointers to be initialised,
provide array bound checks, etc) - however, only a few companies have
ever considered such features to be important when deciding whether or
not to use a language...


--
Roger Barnett
Natron Software Ltd, York, England
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.