Christopher Smith wrote:
Yeah, 'cause we've been able to come up with a language where the compiler can prove that everything is correct.
No. I'm simply referring to warnings that are warnings because the
compiler knows you did something wrong and it *will* come back to bite
you, except it doesn't know how you want to fix them. Like "Warning: You
have a virtual methods but no virtual destructor." There's an error in
your code: Either you shouldn't be declaring anything virtual, or you
need the virtual destructor to avoid corrupting memory. Why is this a
warning and not an error?
Yes, and a reason why most of them are implemented in C or C++. ;-)
You mean, because lots of modern CPUs have a decent fit with C's memory
model? Note that where the fit is poor, other languages aren't (or
can't be) implemented in C.
Actually, many of "them" are implemented in themselves, at this point.
JPython, JRuby, etc.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
