Why don't other programming languages have ranges?

["Jérôme M. Berger"]

Don wrote:
> 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.

	The idea isn't absurd, but you need to use it properly. Saying "I
have run a correctness prover on my code so there aren't any bugs"
is a fallacy, but so is "I have run unit tests with 100% coverage so
there aren't any bugs". The point of correctness proofs isn't that
they will find *all* the bugs, but rather that they will find a
completely different category of bugs than testing.

	So you shouldn't run a correctness prover on your code to prove
that there aren't any bugs, but simply to find some of the bugs (and
you can find a lot of bugs with such a tool).

		Jerome
-- 
mailto:jeberger at free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger at jabber.fr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20100729/97c79b6c/attachment.pgp>