Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #6135

Re: Because read this

Show all headers | View raw

On 31/12/15 19:55, Ramine wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> You must not to believe this Richard Heathfield of comp.programming
> that defend blindly C and C++ with some stupid arguments.

Where "stupid arguments" == "arguments that Ramine doesn't agree with".

> Because read this,

Please look up "because". It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

 > it`s the same that i was saying in my previous post:
>
>
> ``If you’re performing formal verification before testing, you may argue
> that run-time checks are a waste of testing time. After all, they are
> never going to fail, right? Well, even with full formal verification,
> errors might occur. The compiler you are using might be generating the
> wrong code; or the linker might introduce an error; or the hardware
> itself may be faulty. Even formal verification systems have been known
> to contain errors. When we test formally verified software, any test
> failure is symptomatic of a fault in the development process, tool
> chain, or hardware. If we test throughly and find no errors, this gives
> us confidence that the process and tool chain are sound. Testing with
> run-time checks enabled (as well as without, if we intend to ship
> without run-time checks) and experiencing no run-time check failures
> adds to that confidence.``

You seem to be saying here that it can be a good idea to use run-time 
checks during testing. I have no quarrel with that. My quarrel is with 
your claim that *because* C and C++ perform unsigned integer arithmetic 
modulo 2^(CHAR_BIT * sizeof(unsigned_type)) they are THEREFORE 
unsuitable for realtime safety-critical systems programming. That's a 
stupid argument, because there's no "why" in it, no reason that links 
the cause with the effect. It's like saying "rabbits are dangerous 
because they have tails" - there is no connection between the two halves 
of the argument.

>
>
> Read all here please to understand me more:

If you want to be understood, make yourself clearer. Posting Web links 
is never going to achieve that.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Because read this Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-31 20:28 +0000

csiph-web