3 ms·

How can deferring checks of correctness to runtime be considered a feature? Haskell has an option to defer type errors to runtime, so I don’t see why early bind

• zzzcpan 9y ago
  "How can deferring checks of correctness to runtime be considered a feature?" Correctness is not something that matters in the real world. Even defects don't really matter. What matters is problems that defects cause. It's a subtle difference, but very important one. Because you can either limit the scope of those problems at runtime or try to make sure that there are as few defects as possible to cause problems in the first place. First approach doesn't force you to specify anything to check correctness for, is flexible, productive, prepared for the real world. Second approach is much less flexible, much less productive, doesn't work well in the real world, where things fail not only because of defects, but by nature. So, this is how it can be considered a feature. (While writing this I realized that Roboprog probably meant late binding as a feature from OOP, where it is considered necessary for OOP to even exist, not reliability.)
  • runeks 9y ago
    > Correctness is not something that matters in the real world. Even defects don't really matter. What matters is problems that defects cause. It's a subtle difference, but very important one. What, exactly, do you consider the difference between these two? To me, saying ”correctness doesn’t matter” is equivalent to saying “it doesn’t matter whether your app does what you want it to do”, which makes no sense to me.