a potential lisp convert, and interpreting the shootout
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: Pocket Lisp Machine
Next: Next Generation of Language
From: Jon Harrop on 9 Oct 2006 20:58 Ken Tilton wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: >> When I moved from dynamically typed languages to statically typed ones, I >> noticed the compiler picking up lots of errors that I would have had to >> debug at runtime > > Unresponsive! Of /course/ C++ (for example) nags you to death at > compile-time, of /course/ CL frequently has to tell me '+ does not know > what do with "your mama!"'. We knooooooowwwwww /that/. > > The question is specifically about bugs that make it into production. Of > those that do in a Lisp app, how many would have been caught by a > C++-like compiler... Sure. The same is probably true of Lisp vs Java but that has nothing to do with dynamic vs static typing. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Objective CAML for Scientists http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists
From: Ken Tilton on 9 Oct 2006 21:12
jayessay wrote: > Ken Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >>production. Of those that do in a Lisp app, how many would have been >>caught by a C++-like compiler. > > > Or even *ML compilers. IME, such logic bugs are not caught at all by > type systems. The two are orthogonal. > > >>And vice versa: how often do C++ apps fail /because of/ type >>rigidity (see "Ariane 5"). > > > I agree with your basic position, but this is a category error in a > couple ways... > > > BTW: How 'bout those Yankees? <cough cough - choke> ;-) Go Mets! Go Giants! Anybody know a few pitchers George can buy? You can take A-Rod...please! kt -- Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/ "I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific." -- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon |