>> >> C was famous for bugs due to the lack of function prototypes. This was fixed >> with C99 and the stricter typing was a great help. > > Bugs are not "due to lack of function prototypes". Bugs are due to mistakes > that programmers make (and I know all about mistakes programmers make). > Function prototypes can help detect some kinds of mistakes which is helpful. > But, this doesn't help the question of how to transition a weakly-typed > program or whether or not that is even a useful exercise. > > Oh, come on. Writing correct C code used to be a guru exercise. A friend of > mine, a Putnam fellow, was the Weitek guru for drivers. To say bugs are > programmer mistakes is information free, the question is how to minimize > programmer mistakes.
Bugs *are* programmer mistakes. Let's put responsibility where it lies. Of course, writing languages that help programmers make fewer mistakes (or catch them earlier when they do) are a good thing. I'm certainly not arguing against that. But, I reiterate that just because a better way to write new code under some metric is discovered or understood does not mean that all current code should be re-written to use that style. That's the only comment I'm making. Also, you mention the lessons from Python 2 and Python 3, but I'm not sure we would agree on what those lessons actually were, so I wouldn't rely on that as a way of getting your point across if it matters. Best, -Travis
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
