[fpc-pascal] Competitive advantage in showing proof of correctness

[James Smith]

>Let's first get people of type unsafe languages. Type safety with range
checking etc. are a big improvement over type unsafe languages. Yes,
Pascal is already the language to use if you are interrested in software
correctness.

>And perhaps Tom Verhoeff's work will lead to contract programming. But I
don't believe it will be a requirement for FPC, as after decades, very few
people have an interrest in correctness of their programs. Lastly, pre and
post conditions are just another runtime check. Checks can be used to show
the existance of bugs, but not their absence.

Well, I know programmers who turn off range checking and let exceptions fall 
through empty exception blocks. They don't work with me on projects. My 
guess is that this is a business issue that will be decided for programmers, 
not by programmers. Additionally, it's not an issue of absolutes, but of due 
diligence. Once the bar is raised on what due diligence means for software 
developers, they'll accept it because they have to.

Before completely dismissing this issue, I hope you guys will consider 
merging Tom's qualified work into the trunk at some point.

James