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