Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Unless, of course, the problem is on a rarely-executed code path. Like, 
> you make the same mistake a few times, and all the commonly-used code 
> paths get fixed, but there's one slightly rare path that you 
> accidentally miss.

So you're writing code that you never tested? That's not something a 
compiler will help with.

> The other thing, of course, is that you can't *change* part of the code 
> and then just follow the type errors to find all the parts that need 
> updating. You have to manually do several million test runs and hope you 
> hit everything.

This is true. But not what you were talking about.

I'm not saying dynamic languages are superior. I'm simply saying that when 
you're used to using dynamic languages, the "you got the wrong type" is 
really a rare problem.

> You're aware that C# and Java are interpretted languages, right?

No they're not.  No more than the ability to load a DLL means that C is an 
interpreted language.

Plus, look up "C# aot compiler" and rejoice in the glory of it. For example,
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/6t9t5wcf%28VS.80%29.aspx
or http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/Aug-17.html

> the case of C#, it's not even possible to install the runtime without 
> installing the compiler too...)

Nor is that true. What are you smoking over there?  Can I have some?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message