Re: Compiler error messages

[kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <01bd278c$bea48680$9dfc82c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>, "Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> writes:
> I've been most interested in the thread about compiler error messages.
> 
> Having used many many compilers (BASIC, PASCAL, C, Ada, and all sorts of
> others) for many many years, I've come to the conclusion that, almost
> always, the cleverer the compiler tries to be about error messages, the
> less helpful it ends up being, in reality.
> 
> Many is the time when a compiler has reported an error to me, most
> elaborately and cleverly, and been completely and 100% wrong about the true
> nature/source of the error.  And boy does it make me spit.  Hands up who
> hasn't been infuriated by a 'smart' compiler producing reams of completely
> spurious errors (after one legitimate one), presumably because the compiler
> writer thought it would be really clever for the compiler to 'ignore' the
> first error.  I always prefer compilers which simply stop at the first
> error.  What a sad waste of effort.

I have seen some compilers whch do a horrid job (DEC Scan and Bliss-32)
and some which do a wonderful job (DEC Ada).  I suppose this depends on
what sort of errors one is making, but if I knew enough to categorize
my errors, I wouldn't make them !

Larry Kilgallen