Re: Properties and stricture

[John Porter]

Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
> It is doubtful we shall have compilers that can tell you for example,
> that you used the wrong algorithm.

Right.  I think that's what Schwern was getting at, when he said
> > > > Type checking is nice, but its just one class of error-checking.


> By preventing lots of little gotchas, you free the mind to pay attention
> to what it is doing rather than the most minute details of how to do
> it.  This is a quite powerful effect.

Interesting you should mention this.
It is, without a doubt, the main reason we like to program in
Perl, instead of in low-level languages like Fortran and Java.
And it may explain why programs written in Perl -- dynamic,
weakly-typed though it be -- are at least no more buggy than
programs written in low-level languages.

But I think we've strayed into the topic of advocacy.

-- 
John Porter

"Anything essential is invisible to the eyes."