3 ms·
I think that needless compiler errors is an interesting point that isn't discussed often, so that at least is an interesting point. We have those productivity
by Guvante 11y ago
I think that needless compiler errors is an interesting point that isn't discussed often, so that at least is an interesting point.
We have those productivity enhancers because the language makes it easy to make a mistake there. Ideally we would want to eliminate those mistakes without the syntactic headache.
Although obviously how to do that is a complex exercise, I do think that saying "code bloat is bad" even against "bugs are worse" can provide interesting insights into what we really want from languages.
- dietrichepp 11y agoIt's discussed fairly often with static analyzers. Static analysis is a powerful tool, but false positives erode user confidence in the tool. I've worked with code bases where thousands of warnings (and even several errors) were left in place, which meant that you had to basically ignore all diagnostic messages every time you compiled. At that point, you might as well be 2>/dev/null. Someone even wrote a wrapper script that would diff the stderr against the "known good" stderr. My general impression of that project was that it was dying a slow death unless someone went in and restored developer confidence in the build process, and the most likely person was me :-/