|Compile Time vs. Run Time TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM (Paul Robinson) (1993-01-08)|
|Re: Compile Time vs. Run Time, Mixed Language Compiling, Fat Code firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-01-11)|
|Errors and Type checking. email@example.com (1993-01-12)|
|Re: Errors and Type checking. firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-01-12)|
|From:||email@example.com (Anton Ertl)|
|Organization:||Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien|
|Date:||Tue, 12 Jan 1993 09:24:45 GMT|
firstname.lastname@example.org (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.
M. Anton Ertl email@example.com
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.