Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote: > > Brian Boutel to Sergey Mechveliani: > > > > There is no scientific reason why all computations with types and > > > type resolution should preceed all computations with non-types. > > > No scientific reason, but a strong engineering reason. > > > > The engineering idea is to test a design with all available tools before > > building it. That way there will be no disasters that could have been > > forseen. The computing equivalent of an engineering disaster is for a > > program to get a run-time error or to produce an incorrect result. If > > this outcome is acceptable, then the program probably wasn't important > > enough to be worth writing in the first place. > > If an entity is sufficiently complex, there will be always a margin of > error. Good if avoidable, but... > > Would you apply the same philosophy of "non-importance" of a possibly bugged > result, to procreating children?...
Comparing breeding children to programming is surely a little far-fetched. I always enjoyed programming, but not nearly as much as procreating ;-) Anyway, procreating children is not science, nor yet engineering. It must be art, where the concept of "bug" does not exist. --brian _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell