If you talk about lisp, consider that most lisps offer runtime patching, conditions and even let you step in and manually or automatically provide a value to use as the result of a failed evaluation.
I.e., like Erlang, the emphasis is more on handling errors than preventing them. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -----Original Message----- From: Josh Berry <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:33:02 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [The Java Posse] Dart unveiled On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:20 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > The answer is that they just don't care. If it appears to work then it works. > If it fails later on different input then we'll fix it. YAGNI. Proof and test > are so closely-related in our heads that in a number of spoken languages > there's one word for both concepts. I don't know, I just find that a less than compelling answer. Especially when considering lisp offshoots. I don't think it is a lack of caring on their part. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
