3 ms·
The appeal of those tools is that they allow you to retrofit more sophisticated safety features into existing lanugages, where a giant heap of existing code pro
by thomasz 10y ago
The appeal of those tools is that they allow you to retrofit more sophisticated safety features into existing lanugages, where a giant heap of existing code prohibits breaking changes.
- lmm 10y agoI find it more effective to make the porting explicit - make a new language that has a really good FFI into the old language, and gradually migrate to that. (I tried to use the checkers framework for a few years, then instead started using Scala, which was much more effective)
- emodendroket 10y agoPorting the C# compiler to Scala doesn't seem like it would constitute a real vote of confidence in the technology.
- lmm 10y agoPorting it to F# would probably be more aligned to their business interests, and have much the same effect. Actually MS has been pretty good at cherry-picking parts of F# and including them in newer releases of C#, so simply "porting" it to "modern C#" would provide at least some of the benefits (though there's only so much that can be achieved without a willingness to outright deprecate features that now have a better replacement). (You still need a linter to check for use of deprecated features, but that can be a very simple thing; what I'm saying doesn't make sense is sophisticated (and expensive) static analysis tools)