Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

thanks, I wouldn't say any better...

> > 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?

must be the lady.  They can turn bright men into imbeciles. :)

Post a reply to this message