[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
* Uche Ogbuji <Uche.Ogbuji@fourthought.com> [2005-01-04 19:09]:
> On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 16:41 +0000, Kirkham, Pete (UK) wrote:
> Exactly. Real life error conditions almost never fall along the
> neat lines that strongly, statically typed language designers
> draw. I don't think I can recall having *ever* had a program fail
> because someone passed a float to a routine that expected an int.
> Most errors by most competent programmers (IMO) are of much
> sterner stuff. And the problems with most strongly, statically
> typed languages is that their strong typing decreases
> expressiveness of axioms to the extent that it's not even easy to
> arrange to catch the real sorts of errors that can occur
> (although, luckily the recently revived test-first philosophy is
> helping a lot with that).
Funny, it's almost like your referencing the Java SAX error
handling thread.
Checked exceptions, I find, give Java programmers a false sense
of code correctness. A bigger boon-doggle than strong typing,
from which I derive real benefit.
--
Alan Gutierrez - alan@engrm.com
|
