Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: levelheight
Message-ID: <4948@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Jan-85 15:36:12 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4948
Posted: Thu Jan 17 15:36:12 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Jan-85 15:36:12 EST
References: <2340@hplabsc.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 27

I was once talking to someone and got the distinct impression that
he thought that a compiler that did a lot of checking should
enable him to write totally bug-free programs. This bothered me.
Perhaps it was bravado, but I feared he would never learn to check
logic errors, on the assumption that ``if it compiled, it would be
fine.'' He was working as a short-term consultant where one can get
away with such trash. (I was working as a consultant where one often
fixes such trash).

I wonder whether this is widespread. The problem with safety devices
is that people rely on them to do their thinking for them in situations
where they shouldn't.

On the other hand, after picking logic and lint errors out of a net.sources
submission, i wonder if having a strongly typed C compiler might just
halve the work I do anyway.

Anybody done a ``Pascal programmers make X times as many logic errors
as C programmers'' type of survey?

Hmm. Maybe if they don't have to worry about type checking they can think
more about logic errors. But I worry -- if you don't worry about type casting
then are you really thinking about writing code at all?

Confusedly yours,
Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura