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

Groups > comp.programming > #6091

Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C

Show all headers | View raw

W dniu środa, 30 grudnia 2015 20:03:14 UTC+1 użytkownik Ramine napisał:
> Hello,
> 
> 
> You are making your argument stupid..
> 
> Because we must have a way in the compiler to discipline the
> programmer to not make a mistake, you are saying that in C and C++
> you have to test for your logic yourself to not overflow
> or underflow, that's not good, because in FreePascal
> and Delphi and Ada, if you want the compiler to discipline
> you to not make an error of logic that makes you overflow
> or underflow a signed or unsigned int, you can compile your program
> in FreePascal with -Co compiler option and after that you can locally
> catch the exception of overflow or underflow and reraise an exception
> to detect the faulty function that caused it, or you can globally
> catch the exception, but you can not do that in C++ and C , so
> this is why in my opinion C and C++ are not suitable for
> realtime safety critical systems.
> 
your reasoning is worth a ram..

1) the jump from the lack of integer overflow check in a compiler to reasoning than c and c++ are "not suitable for  realtime safety critical systems" is an idiot reasoning (what with a thousand of other properties - they do not matter?)
2) this integer check has not much to c/c++ you may use a small compiler extension to
turn it on - this depends on compiler,
\i wonder if "pascal" language says pascal compiler must have it becouse it is a pascal
3) not to mention other things
4) really great news ramine, youre enlighting a whole world by this precious knowledge
5) stop spamming the groups uninteligent spammer,

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

Thread

Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 18:50 +0000
  Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-12-30 11:28 -0800
    Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 19:48 +0000
    Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 19:51 +0000
    Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:07 +0000
  Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 11:34 -0800
  Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 19:41 +0000
    Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 19:51 +0000
    Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:06 +0000
    Re: Read again about my objection about C++ and C Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:06 +0000

csiph-web