Why don't other programming languages have ranges?

[BCS]

Hello Walter,

> bearophile wrote:
> 
>> You have to think about proofs as another (costly) tool to avoid
>> bugs/bangs, but not as the ultimate and only tool you have to use (I
>> think dsimcha was trying to say that there are more costly-effective
>> tools. This can be true, but you can't be sure that is right in
>> general).
>> 
> I want to re-emphasize the point that keeps getting missed.
> 
> Building reliable systems is not about trying to make components that
> cannot fail. It is about building a system that can TOLERATE failure
> of any of its components.
> 
> It's how you build safe systems from UNRELIABLE parts. And all parts
> are unreliable. All of them. Really. All of them.
> 

Agreed. You can make a system that can tolerate failures (e.g. not do something 
damaging), but that doesn't make it acceptable (e.g. continue to do what 
it's supposed to). Pure redundancy aside, if a part not working didn't degrade 
the system, you would remove it from the design. Making parts more reliable 
will increases the amount of time the system is in a non depredated state.

-- 
... <IXOYE><