Re: another take on hackers and painters

[Dan Sugalski <address@hidden>]

At 3:52 PM -0500 5/21/03, Robby Findler wrote:
>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!

I'm going to take a wild guess here that you're not a big fan of 
autoconversion...
-- 
                                         Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
dan@sidhe.org                         have teddy bears and even
                                       teddy bears get drunk