3 ms·
In what way is "garbage in garbage out" better than consistent handling and explicit failure, especially for something so well-defined mathematically? That's so
by bpicolo 10y ago
In what way is "garbage in garbage out" better than consistent handling and explicit failure, especially for something so well-defined mathematically? That's sort of a lazy argument, imo.
I shouldn't need to pull in more libs for baseline language expectations, either. Core libraries are what languages really are, much more important than just syntax.
- dragandj 10y agoBecause checks to avoid some kinds of garbage can incure significant performance penalty. There is always a tradeoff in that sense, and I think Clojure is pretty well balanced in that way. So, read the docs, try the functions out to see how they work, write tests, and sanitize the data at the appropriate place.
- mcguire 10y agoIf it's good enough for ANSI C, it's good enough for you...
- bpicolo 10y agoMatters so rarely that it's far better to rewrite in those cases when necessary.
- dragandj 10y agoIn core libraries? If low-level functions checked the inputs for each odd case, they'd (often unnecessarily) spend 90% of time doing those checks.