home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.compilers
- Path: sparky!uunet!world!iecc!compilers-sender
- From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
- Subject: Re: Errors and Type checking.
- Reply-To: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
- Organization: Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 09:24:45 GMT
- Approved: compilers@iecc.cambridge.ma.us
- Message-ID: <93-01-071@comp.compilers>
- References: <93-01-041@comp.compilers> <93-01-065@comp.compilers>
- Keywords: performance, debug
- Sender: compilers-sender@iecc.cambridge.ma.us
- Lines: 28
-
- jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles) writes:
- > Most errors are not syntactic or static semantic errors (like type
- > errors). 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.
-
- I can confirm this from experience with languages that do not check types
- at all (e.g. Forth). I have not found type errors to be a problem. There
- are two reasons for this:
-
- 1) I make fewer type errors than when programming in a compile-time
- type-checked language. I.e., I am more careful. It probably takes a bit of
- time to develop that programming mode.
-
- 2) When I make a type error, it is usually easy to catch and correct (It
- helps if the language is interactive).
-
- I think the more problematic type errors are those that the type checker
- does not check, e.g. a search tree that is not sorted. Of course, this
- sort of error could be caught with compile-time assertion checkers, but
- somehow this technology has not caught on.
-
- - anton
- --
- M. Anton Ertl anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
- --
- Send compilers articles to compilers@iecc.cambridge.ma.us or
- {ima | spdcc | world}!iecc!compilers. Meta-mail to compilers-request.
-