Derek Parnell: > But isn't lint written by humans?
Right, but this doesn't mean a lot, because most programs don't work the same way humans and human brains think. >I'm under the impression that a //lint// program is an attempt to emulate a >very pedantic (if not anal-retentive) person who in real life would have no >real friends, due to their obsessiveâcompulsive habit for extreme >nit-picking.< But the mind of such person and a lint work in very different ways. So they are often able to spot different classes of problems. >The article you reference is primarily saying that this specific lint-like >functionality contains bugs. It is not an argument to convince us to abandon >lint functionality.< Both my post and that link weren't meant to abadon lints, I like the idea of lints :-) I have shown that blog post as an example of the wide difference between lints skills and human programmers skills. >I once, long ago, suggested to Walter/Andrei that D is approaching the ASCII >equivalent of APL.< I have used the K language a bit, that is one "ASCII equivalent" of APL, and it's nowhere D both in semantics, readability, and conciseness :-) Writing K code is more like solving a puzzle. And reading it is like solving a different puzzle. Bye, bearophile
