home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!spdcc!iecc!compilers-sender
- From: winikoff@cs.mu.oz.au
- Newsgroups: comp.compilers
- Subject: Errors and Type checking.
- Keywords: debug, types
- Message-ID: <93-01-069@comp.compilers>
- Date: 12 Jan 93 18:13:32 GMT
- Article-I.D.: comp.93-01-069
- Sender: compilers-sender@iecc.cambridge.ma.us
- Reply-To: winikoff@cs.mu.oz.au
- Organization: Compilers Central
- Lines: 26
- Approved: compilers@iecc.cambridge.ma.us
-
- > From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
- > ... The vast majority of debugging time is spent isolating and
- > correcting problems which are not - and cannot be - found by the
- > typechecks no matter how strict your type system is. To put it another
- > way: people make mistakes and those mistakes which the compiler (or some
- > analyzer) can find automatically are the least difficult to find and
- > correct.
-
- Not neccessarily. A lot of the mistakes that people make induce type
- errors as a side effect. Of course the type checker won't give you the
- cause of the error but in a fair number of cases it will detect that there
- is an error even if the error is a logical one.
-
- > It seems to me that the main problem with compiler writers ... is that
- > compiler writers don't actually *use* the language the compiler is written
- > to compile. Such compiler jockeys don't understand the issues which are
- > important to the users.
-
- A fair number of languages have compilers that are written in themselves.
- (Eg. Prolog, C, Haskell ...)
- --
- Michael Winikoff
- winikoff@cs.mu.oz.au
- --
- Send compilers articles to compilers@iecc.cambridge.ma.us or
- {ima | spdcc | world}!iecc!compilers. Meta-mail to compilers-request.
-