From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f891f,9d58048b8113c00f X-Google-Attributes: gidf891f,public X-Google-Thread: 10261c,2e71cf22768a124d X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,9d58048b8113c00f X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,2e71cf22768a124d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: ian@rsd.bel.alcatel.be (Ian Ward) Subject: Re: next "big" language?? (disagree) Date: 1996/06/11 Message-ID: <4pjl57$cn0@btmpjg.god.bel.alcatel.be>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 159592582 distribution: world references: <4phmsb$1dd@gaia.ns.utk.edu> organization: Alcatel Bell Telephone reply-to: ian@rsd.bel.alcatel.be newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.pascal.misc Date: 1996-06-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In reply to my earlier statements along the lines of having the compiler hammer out the syntax checking ... James O'Connor wrote : : This is precisely why I enjoy Smalltalk so much. With very few : syntactical rules to worry about, whether I'm writing code or reading : someone elses, I can concentrate more on the intent of the code. "What : needs to be accomplished" rather than "What language rules do I have to : remember for this situation". Firstly, I didn't say there were no syntax rules to Ada, there are, and they are there for the reason that they help eradicate errors in program production, (note that James O'Connor hasn't specifically stated this about Smalltalk either but as I only have a finite time to learn languages I am not qualified to make a guess what he meant by it.) Which then brings me to Mathew B. Kennel's retort > And by doing so turns what would otherwise be superficial syntactic or > linguistic errors into programs with run-time bugs. If he is talking about Ada here, then I think his argument is flawed because it, in my opinion, assumes that the rate of errors per SLOC a programmer makes is independent of language. I don't think that for every syntax error a programmer spots in his code as a result of a compiler listing, another semantic error is created instead, (or is even present.) It is more likely that a given programmer generally has N syntax errors/1000SLOC and M semantic errors/1000SLOC (where M and N vary on the ability of the programmer, his interest in his work, and the difficulty of it.) In this situation, a good compiler, will point out his N syntax errors, which he will correct. In the process of correcting these, it is also likely that he will spot a few of the semantic errors. This would then leave < M semantic errors for the programmer to track down at run-time. All the language would then need is some kind of run time checking to help him out. --- Ian Ward's opinions only : ian@rsd.bel.alcatel.be