Why don't other programming languages have ranges?

[retard]

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:11:21 +0200, Don wrote:

> Jim Balter wrote:
>> 
>> "Walter Bright" <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message
>> news:i2nkto$8ug$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> 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.
>> 
>> You're being religious about this and arguing against a strawman. While
>> all parts are unreliable, they aren't *equally* unreliable. Unit tests,
>> contract programming, memory safe access, and other reliability
>> techniques, *including correctness proofs*, all increase reliability.
> 
> I have to disagree with that. "Correctness proofs" are based on a total
> fallacy. Attempting to proving that a program is correct (on a real
> machine, as opposed to a theoretical one) is utterly ridiculous. I'm
> genuinely astonished that such an absurd idea ever had any traction.

What's your favorite then? 100% unit test coverage?