> C, Unix or Ada, none of them can ensure the system is completely free of errors.
This is really a pointless comment. Here is a similar one: Nothing can prevent the best burglars to break into your house (so why buy an expensive lock?)
> Some languages can help reduce "certain" kinds of errors, often trading-off execution speed and/or generality...
What every C Programmer should know about undefined behavior #2/3
Posted May 19, 2011 15:22 UTC (Thu) by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
[Link]
>> C, Unix or Ada, none of them can ensure the system is completely free of errors.
>This is really a pointless comment. Here is a similar one: Nothing can prevent the best burglars to break into your house (so why buy an expensive lock?)
I would not call it pointless, but I agree it's rather trivial. Anyway, it's useful to keep it in mind when listening to vendor's preaching the latest silver bullet.
>> and introducing subtle, new kinds of errors.
>No.
The logical conclusion would be, then, that a "perfect" language that prevents any kind of error is possible, which is absurd.
What every C Programmer should know about undefined behavior #2/3
Posted May 19, 2011 23:45 UTC (Thu) by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link]
> it's useful to keep it in mind when listening to vendor's preaching the latest silver bullet.
Let's keep the trivial statements coming: every vendor is preaching the latest silver bullet. It's their job, they are paid for it. Their lies does not mean every product sucks.
> The logical conclusion would be, then, that a "perfect" language that prevents any kind of error is possible,
Your logic is really beyond me.
What every C Programmer should know about undefined behavior #2/3
Posted May 20, 2011 3:01 UTC (Fri) by viro (subscriber, #7872)
[Link]
> Their lies does not mean every product sucks.
Their lies do not mean that water is wet either...
What every C Programmer should know about undefined behavior #2/3
Posted May 20, 2011 6:10 UTC (Fri) by dark (subscriber, #8483)
[Link]
The logical conclusion would be, then, that a "perfect" language that prevents any kind of error is possible, which is absurd.
That doesn't follow. An alternate conclusion is that even the subtlest errors are already possible in existing languages.