Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Computer architects leaving Intel...
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 23:53:58 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <20240904235358.00001101@yahoo.com>
References: <2024Aug30.161204@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
	<memo.20240830164247.19028y@jgd.cix.co.uk>
	<vasruo$id3b$1@dont-email.me>
	<2024Aug30.195831@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
	<vat5ap$jthk$2@dont-email.me>
	<vaunhb$vckc$1@dont-email.me>
	<vautmu$vr5r$1@dont-email.me>
	<2024Aug31.170347@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
	<vavpnh$13tj0$2@dont-email.me>
	<vb00c2$150ia$1@dont-email.me>
	<505954890d8461c1f4082b1beecd453c@www.novabbs.org>
	<vb0kh2$12ukk$1@dont-email.me>
	<vb3smg$1ta6s$1@dont-email.me>
	<vb4q5o$12ukk$3@dont-email.me>
	<vb6a16$38aj5$1@dont-email.me>
	<vb7evj$12ukk$4@dont-email.me>
	<vb8587$3gq7e$1@dont-email.me>
	<vb91e7$3o797$1@dont-email.me>
	<vb9eeh$3q993$1@dont-email.me>
	<vba56o$3te58$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2024 22:54:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f5b4484afd3dbda6f2ab188785210aec";
	logging-data="4181427"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/kCi/JGj4eOB9dSgUmcMiYE8HGoe0AFlA="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZVYVVavcBWqJPuV5MixVaPnkAIY=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.34; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 2823

On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:25:44 -0000 (UTC)
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:

> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb:
> 
> > 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)

Wise man was wrong.
Range check are not similar to live jackets. They do not turn incorrect
program into correct one.