Re: The D Programming Language
Peter Dimov wrote:
It is certainly true that illegal operations that manifest themselves
as changing valid object memory at a random location are an incredible
pain to debug. On a practical level, this cannot be denied. On a
theoretical level, there is nothing in the C++ specification that
mandates that undefined behavior must be left undetected; in principle,
this allows a C++ implementation to be safer than Java. (In practice,
this never happens, because there is (was?) no market demand for it.
Are you sure? What about CenterLine? What about running C++
under Purify?
Given the widespread use of Purify (and valgrind, and other such
tools), I'd say that there definitly is a market demand for such
verifications, and it's being met. The difference with regards
to Java, here, is that the design of Java allows such run-time
checks to be cheap enough that they can remain in the delivered
code. (The language specification says that they have to, but
we all know what that's worth. If they weren't cheap enough,
every JVM would have an option to turn them off, language
specification or no.)
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient?e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S?mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'?cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]