language_fan Wrote: > > Now if you really want to throw some sticks into the spokes, you would > > say that if the program crashes due to a null pointer, it is still > > likely that the programmer will just initialize/set the value to a > > "default" that still isn't valid just to get the program to continue to > > run. > > Why should it crash in the first place? I hate crashes. You liek them? I > can prove by structural induction that you do not like them when you can > avoid crashes with static checking.
No one likes programs that crash, doesn't that mean it is an incorrect behavior though? > Have you ever used functional languages? When you develop in Haskell or > SML, how often you feel there is a good change something will be > initialized to the wrong value? Can you show some statistics that show > how unsafe this practice is? So isn't that the question? Does/can "default" (by human or machine) initialization create an incorrect state? If it does, do we continue to work as if nothing was wrong or crash? I don't know how often the initialization would be incorrect, but I don't think Walter is concerned with it's frequency, but that it is possible.
