Erann Gat wrote:
> After all, it is not unreasonable to expect that all the work
> required just to get the program to compile so you could run it
> for the first time should pay a dividend of some sort, and what
> else could that dividend possibly be other than having to do
> less testing?
Sorry for this late contribution to the thread (which I haven't
read entirely, yet), but I'm new to Lisp (L*O*V*E IT!!!) and I've
been mostly lurking so far (I can't keep up with c.l.l traffic
anyway).
What I wanted to mention: I've been a programmer for almost 30
years and have *mostly* worked with static typing. On the matter
of static vs: dynamic, I really have no opinion. Both are wonderful
as far as I can tell. Kind of like pancakes and jellybeans. Love'm
both.
ANYWAY, wrt the quote from Erann above: I *do* consider it *very*
unreasonable to expect a compiled program is error-free just 'cause
it compiles. As has been pointed out several times already, no
language is free from RT errors, and only a fool would think a
clean compile means *anything* other than your syntax is good.
Having nothing else to contribute, I return to LurkMode.....
--
|_ CJSonnack <·····@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|