On Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 17:25:55 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: >Benno wrote: > >> Umm, I can't remember the other things right now. ;) It was by no means >> perfect >> and had plenty of warts, but it was definately better than I was expecting ;) > >The stuff I was finding really unpaletable about Actionscript (which >seems so much like Javascript) is the the functional code (ie no >classes) has close to zero sanity checking in the compiler that >compiles it into a ShockWaveFlash file. In addition, the run time >environment had close to zero error reporting. This means that >things like having a variable name mis-spelled would not cause and >error message at compile time nor would it complain at run time. >Instead, it would just silent fail to do what i wanted it to. > >The OO stuff in Actionscript is better because suddenly some of these >things start getting checked at compile time. There are still really >big screw ups possible. > >I once spent about 2 hours trying figure out a problem when I had >defined a class named say Yada and then did: > > some_var = Yada () ; > >instead of: > > some_var = new Yada () ; > >Crap like this is like riding high powered motorcycles with bald >tires at high speed in the rain during a cyclone. You are almost
Yeah, I've been caught by that as well. Of course here I blame tools, rather than the language itself. (Of course, if the lnaguage sucks its hard to make tools for blah blah blah). Benno _______________________________________________ coders mailing list coders@slug.org.au http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/coders
