On Feb 24, 2007, at 6:03 PM, Per Bothner wrote:
Arthur A. Gleckler wrote:
My only concern is that an error in one part of my program should
not prevent me from running another part of the program. The
thing I most dislike about most statically typed language
implementations is that they prevent me from testing a program
that isn't yet completely type-correct when I'm not even planning
to invoke the broken part of the program. I suppose that this
suggestion only allows, but doesn't require, compiler writers to
signal errors it can detect at compile time. Still, I'd rather
not encourage this behavior if it makes it impossible to run
programs that are not yet completely correct.
I really don't understand this point of view. We know that it is
*much* easier to find and fix a bug the earlier it is caught. If a
compiler can automatically find a bug right after you write it,
and you don't have to write any extra code or do any extra work,
then it seems silly to not take advantage of this help.
I'm perfectly happy to be prevented from running the exact code that
the compiler has proven -- proven -- will fail. I just don't want to
be prevented from running the rest of the program even though it is
perfectly correct. Most statically typed language implementations
prevent me from running any and every part of the program when just a
tiny part is incorrect. That's what I want to avoid.
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
