4 ms·
> checking for consistency in all of the repeated instances of a thing is one form of low-hanging-fruit safety check. I shouldn't have to make such checks in t
by wyager 10y ago
> checking for consistency in all of the repeated instances of a thing is one form of low-hanging-fruit safety check.
I shouldn't have to make such checks in the first place. Not making a mistake in the first place is preferable to detecting it later on.
- jacques_chester 10y ago> Not making a mistake in the first place is preferable to detecting it later on. Not trying to detect a mistake is a great way to form the impression that you're not making them in the first place.
- wyager 10y agoPerhaps I was not clear. A preferable alternative to detecting mistakes is to ensure that they are impossible to make in the first place.
- asimuvPR 10y agoWe should also consider the mistakes of others and runtime errors.
- bitwize 10y agoIf you're a human, you make mistakes. It's what you do. Having the compiler check your work for mistakes and flagging them up early is better than letting them slide.
- wyager 10y ago>If you're a human, you make mistakes. Unless you can design your compiler to make a class of mistake impossible, as we were discussing.