Re: Error-handling if your compiler had an attitude.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 13:51:06 -0800 (PST), federation2005@netzero.com
wrote:


>What if your compiler had an attitude problem? I was thinking of funny things
>it could do for error-handling (maybe with a -X switch for GenX/Millennial
>verbose output):


          HA! I did something like this for an assignment in COBOL for
implementing an AirMiles-type program. I had two versions of
messages, one in CorpSpeak and one in smart-alecky language. For
example, the trademark messages were something like:


AirKloms is a trademark of BobCorp International, and we are a
licenced user of the mark.


AirKloms belongs to BobCorp. We are in with the man. You aren't. Go
ahead, punk. Make our lawyers rich.


Warning messages ended with either


- Continuing


or


- I'll try to cope.


          It was great fun!


          The messages need not be GenX/Millennial to snark. Here are my
versions:


>* It addresses you like "Dude! You boffed the syntax again." or the like.


          "Were you a disappointment to your English teacher, too?"


>* It tells you to get glasses if you keep missing semicolons [Note 1].


          "Since you do not seem to like semicolons, you might try
JavaScript where they are optional."


>* If you use older or archaic style (particularly, deprecated stuff), it makes
>fun of you and asks if you need help with your walker. [Note 2].


          "It has been a while since I last compiled that type of
statement. Let me check; it might be a valuable antique."


>* When variables are spelled inconsistently, it recommends Sesame Street to
>you for remedial assistance.


          "Either you have missing declarations or no dictionary."


>* When you forget to include declarations for built-in stuff, it pretends it's
>never heard of the function, like "what's a 'printf' and why is the 'f'
>there?"


          "Some compilers assume that you are so stupid that they need to
assume stuff for you. I prefer to think that you know better, but I
am beginning to think that the other compilers may be right."


>* Other undeclared externals get replies like "What? Am I supposed to figure
>out what my_func is by myself?"


          "Mother says that I should not talk to strangers. Please
introduce us."


>* When there are too many errors, it may reply with "you're in way over your
>head" or "are you sure you're using the right language?"


          "Computers are sensitive pieces of equipment. Please have your
cat walk somewhere else."


          Mind you, C++ can do it all by itself with one error. I once
forgot the parens around two calls in one statement and got over 100
error messages. The compiler stopped, because it hit the maximum.


>* It may also silently rack up error counts and afterwards ask, "There are
>2015 errors. Would you like to see them all? Huh? Huh?"


          "There were rather a lot of errors in that code. Which order
would you prefer that I present the error messages in, and would you
like the output bound or loose?"


>* If you keep using keywords as your own variable names or other names, it
>goes like "Stop that!" and threatens to delete or uninstall itself, maybe with
>a menacing statement "I know where my home directory is." or "I hope you kept
>backups of your installation files."


          "I do not think that word means what you think it means."


>[I recall a few compilers a long time ago, like the 1970s, that tried
>to be cute. It was amusing for about 5 minutes, then annoying.


          Yes, it would be quite annoying, but not quite as bad as UNIX man
pages. Too many that I saw "documented" error messages with the note
that they were self-explanatory.


>Also see http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/29/facebook-apologises-over-cruel-year-in-review-clips
>-John]


          Ouch!


Sincerely,


Gene Wirchenko

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.