Re: another take on hackers and painters

[Robby Findler <address@hidden>]

At Wed, 21 May 2003 15:44:01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 3:34 PM -0400 5/21/03, John Clements wrote:
> >Put another way:  don't you want as much checking as you can 
> >possibly get at acceptable cost?
> 
> No.
> 
> >and
> >
> >isn't having to write 'string->number' an acceptable cost?
> 
> No.
> 
> Which, I expect, will bring the discussion to something of a halt. I 
> don't see it as a general problem. In those circumstances where it 
> is, I use a language that doesn't do it.

Wonderful -- error checking is not a general problem. Lets just make up
results for strange situations. Trying index outside the bounds of the
array? No problem, just return some random bits. Trying to pop an empty
stack? No problem, we'll just guess you probably wanted 0 (or maybe, on
Tuesday's, for variety, we'll return the null pointer or the empty list
or false).

In fact, lets get rid of all errors in programs. Up with the DWIM
instruction! Down with reliability!


Robby