Content deleted Content added
→"Safe modular programming": Not weasel-word, but still subjective. |
→"Safe modular programming": Reply, very late |
||
Line 81:
:I don't have sources, but I remember proponents of Ada stating it aimed to make programming more safe, meaning tending to produce fewer or less severe bugs, especially for large projects. Features supporting this focused on inter-module programming constructs, where other languages, like C, could be weak in detecting certain kinds of bugs. So, it's not really a "weasel" word, but I'd say it's subjective at best, and may only be theoretical. In my experience, although Ada did have features that purported to address some things around this, other contemporary languages and code-checking tools did as well or better with less awkwardness.
:In summary, I'd say it's okay to keep ''if sourced''. Otherwise, it should go. --[[User:A D Monroe III|A D Monroe III]]<sup>([[User talk:A D Monroe III#top|talk]])</sup> 02:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
::Good point. I tend to use terms to mean what I want them to mean rather than what they're commonly accepted to mean—so if "weasel word" connotes intent to mislead as Google's dictionary says, then I should have just said "ambiguous". But anyway, it just seems shady to make the sweeping statement that no language the DoD used supported this way of programming and then not indicate precisely what features they lacked that made them un"safe". Oh well. It's not terribly important anyway. I do find it disturbing that there are so many instances online of people parroting this phrase when each person who reads it probably has a slightly different idea of what it's supposed to mean. —[[User:GreenWeasel11|GreenWeasel11]] ([[User talk:GreenWeasel11|talk]]) 03:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
| |||