On 11/1/13 8:03 AM, bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
...
Everyone who writes safety critical software should really avoid
languages unable to detect integral overflows (at compile-time or
run-time) in all normal numerical operations,
I'm unclear on why you seem so eager to grind that axe. The matter seems
to be rather trivial - disallow statically the use of built-in
integrals, and prescribe the use of library types that do the
verification. A small part of the codebase that's manually verified
(such as the library itself) could use the primitive types. Best of all
worlds. In even a medium project, the cost of the verifier and
maintaining that library is negligible.
and languages that have undefined operations in their basic
semantics.
We need to get SafeD up to snuff!
So Ada language is OK, C and D are not OK for safety critical software.
Well that's Ada's claim to fame. But I should hope D would have a safety
edge over C.
Andrei
