From -3510239660197354514 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,ccbfcafab96cf493 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-09 11:17:01 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Proposol to increase robustness of programs Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 19:16:46 GMT Organization: Klub Nieszkodliwych =?iso-8859-2?Q?Manjak=F3w?= Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ Message-ID: References: <3BFE97B3.91430FB1@wanadoo.fr> <3C058126.36357A00@acm.org> <3C06A0CE.E91638E8@acm.org> <3C0C1E25.1A0247AD@acm.org> <3C0D410B.7198B21D@wanadoo.fr> <3C0D4878.A86E882E@acm.org> <7dc3b1ea.0112060840.69c166cc@posting.google.com> <3C0FD9D7.8F1845C4@acm.org> <7dc3b1ea.0112070704.1d8ad50f@posting.google.com> <3C11055C.899A4886@acm.org> <7dc3b1ea.0112080650.4af0bc11@posting.google.com> <3C125900.53951788@acm.org> X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1007925417 mail2news:461 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mail2News-Path: news.demon.net!mulga.cs.mu.oz.au X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 11:17:54 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux) Lines: 56 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.std.c++:8569 Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:20:25 GMT, Pete Becker pisze: > Making it easy to detect some portion of a class of errors at > compile-time encourages sloppiness: hack the code until it compiles, > then declare it finished. What's needed is the discipline to trace the > implications of the change through all of the code, not just to the > places where the compiler detects a problem. This reasoning can be applied to any mandated diagnostic and that's why I don't believe it. What you are saying implies that it would be better to require any text to be accepted as a valid program, with possible erroneous behavior which would be catched by tests instead of the compiler. I strongly disagree. If it's possible to detect the most probable place of a given error at compile time, it should be detected. Programmers won't automatically become better if they have fewer tools to use, they won't be more productive if writing tests takes five times as long as writing code. Compilers can detect many errors a lot cheaper than tests, more reliably, with better diagnosis about the source of the error. Valid arguments against adding a mechanism which detects more errors at compile time are making the language more complex (i.e. more learning, more verbose code, harder to write compilers). The fact that errors are now detectable by the compiler makes no sense for me as an argument against. How would you judge Boost's concept checking mechanisms? They reject code which would possibly work, but which is against the rules. The way you advocate encourages sloppiness: hack the code until current tests pass, no matter if the code makes sense or will be correct if something changes. You would change a badly behaving code where the misbehavior is catched, which is not necessarily the same place where the error is. A compiler can detect some errors without running the code in question: it will predict that something is wrong before you discover a contradiction in its consequences. If you could test everything and thus if you knew the behavior for all inputs, you wouldn't have to write the program in the first place. Testing is no substitute for sane design (I mean design in the small scale). -- __("< Marcin Kowalczyk * qrczak@knm.org.pl http://qrczak.ids.net.pl/ \__/ ^^ QRCZAK --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html ]