Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c arch |
On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:25:44 -0000 (UTC)Wise man was right. Range checks are not intended to turn incorrect programs into correct ones - they are for damage mitigation. Life jackets don't stop you falling overboard, they stop you drowning if you /do/ fall overboard. The context of the quotation was "security checks", which is different from debugging and fault-finding.
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb:Wise man was wrong.
>I'm all in favour of temporarily having checks for overflow (and>
other errors) during debugging, but I am sceptical to having
distinct debug/release builds. It encourages people to use debug
builds during development, bug hunting and testing, then when all
looks good they switch to release build and deploy it. I prefer a
single build, and enable run-time checks on parts of it if and when
necessary.
Wise man once said...
>
# It is absurd to make elaborate security checks on debugging runs,
# when no trust is put in the results, and then remove them in
# production runs, when an erroneous result could be expensive or
# disastrous. What would we think of a sailing enthusiast who wears
# his lifejacket when training on dry land, but takes it off as soon
# as he goes to sea?
>
(C.A.R. Hoare, in "Hints on Programming Language Desin)
Range check are not similar to live jackets. They do not turn incorrect
program into correct one.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.