Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| From: | Derek <derek-nospam@shape-of-code.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:45:30 +0100 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 24-06-003 24-06-005 24-06-011 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="28997"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | design, books |
| Posted-Date: | 12 Jun 2024 10:51:05 EDT |
| In-Reply-To: | 24-06-011 |
John, Anton,
>> The other was that in the languages where it is
>> hard to write a valid program, how much more likely is it that the program
>> actually works once you get it to compile? -John]
>
> That is the promise of programming langauges that make it hard to get
> a program to compile: get it to compile, and it is usually correct. I
> am not aware of any empirical evidence that supports this promise.
Requiring that variables are defined before use
decreases incorrectness (which is not a marketable term).
There is a tiny amount of evidence that strong typing may
be a benefit
https://shape-of-code.com/2014/08/27/evidence-for-the-benefits-of-strong-typing-where-is-it/
cost effectiveness of benefits is a question that
researchers avoid (it smacks of grubby usefulness).
If you are interested in evidence, check out
My book, Evidence-based Software Engineering, which
discusses what is currently known about software engineering,
based on an analysis of all the publicly available data
pdf+code+all data freely available here:
http://knosof.co.uk/ESEUR/
If you know of any interesting software engineering
data that I don't have, please tell me about it.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.