From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,76ec5d55630beb71 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-01 19:25:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!not-for-mail From: "Bobby D. Bryant" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada 200X Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 20:22:12 -0600 Organization: dis- Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: dial-91-13.ots.utexas.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: geraldo.cc.utexas.edu 1054520561 23181 128.83.249.13 (2 Jun 2003 02:22:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@utexas.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 02:22:41 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Pan/0.14.0 (I'm Being Nibbled to Death by Cats!) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38297 Date: 2003-06-01T20:22:12-06:00 List-Id: On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 17:36:27 -0400, And838 wrote: > I've heard professors say they don't like Ada because it's slow and does > all those "bounds" checking "things". My opinion is; take a look at the > bugs in MS code that lead to viruses because of buffer exploits and > unchecked "bounds". Ada just seems a smart way to go, especially with > newer faster processors. IMO programmers for the most part are far too concerned with speed and far too little concerned with correctness. Also, it's not uncommon to find someone who tries to do "cute" things to optimize some local operation for speed, but then embeds it in a horribly inefficient exponential-time algorithm. -- Bobby Bryant Austin, Texas