On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 12:00 +1000, Bruce Badger wrote: > [good things about run-time behaviour of modern interpretive languages] This isn't my gripe, and I'm not certain it's Erik's, either. I don't care when in the process the code is compiled (well, I do, for embedded code) so long as I don't notice. As a developer intent on doing the best job possible, I want to discover whole classes of bugs long before the corresponding unit test is executed. (E.g. my keyboard can't spel.) What is essential in a production environment is a way to validate the code for trivially stupid mistakes, like a = b.c where b is an int, and c is a struct member; or prentf("%g\m", 4); information that some simple static analysis would find. Of great interest, of course, are the subtle bugs that more complex static analysis can find. Preferably in combination with some process which makes it impossible to put unvalidated into production; which is an oft-overlooked (and undervalued) advantage of compiled languages. The worst are some interpretive languages where whole code blocks are parsed at run time, creating the wonderful situation where customers (!) ring up and say "what does syntax error mean?" because no test case went down that code branch. This is ZERO improvement on 30 years ago when customers routinely reported "goto 40: no such line" types of errors in Basic programs. -- Regards Peter Miller <millerp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> /\/\* http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~millerp/ PGP public key ID: 1024D/D0EDB64D fingerprint = AD0A C5DF C426 4F03 5D53 2BDB 18D8 A4E2 D0ED B64D See http://www.keyserver.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part