home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.nyu.edu!schonberg!dewar
- From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu
- Subject: Re: ANSI C and POSIX (was Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada)
- Date: 10 Apr 1996 07:36:21 -0400
- Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
- Message-ID: <dewar.829136049@schonberg>
- References: <JSA.96Feb16135027@organon.com> <dewar.829051685@schonberg> <829066525snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> <dewar.829096975@schonberg> <4kf8k1INN68b@keats.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: schonberg.cs.nyu.edu
- X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 (NOV)
-
- Kazimir said
-
- "BTW, I checked the Ada POSIX standard too, but that reads like a VCR manual
- from 1984. ;) heh"
-
- Actually, the Ada spec for the corresponding function is absolutely clear.
- This is because the strong typing of Ada leaves no doubt as to the
- semantics of exceeding the buffer size, and the called routine knows
- the length of the buffer.
-
- One problem that I notice a lot of people have is in reading precise
- standards. A lot of people actually prefer vague descriptions with a
- few examples. Again the issue is one of training. Recently in my
- undergraduate class a student posted a note to the course list
- claiming that all books are useless and unreadabe, and that the
- only way to learn to program is to see examples.
-
- Sigh!
-
-