3 ms·
About your edit, It's Pattern => Language bug, not Language bug => Pattern. You are assuming the opposite meaning. In other words, not all bugs are patterns b
by setzer22 9y ago
About your edit,
It's Pattern => Language bug, not Language bug => Pattern. You are assuming the opposite meaning.
In other words, not all bugs are patterns but all patterns are necesarily bugs (not IMO, it's just the interpretation).
- js8 9y agoI agree that you're right in strict logic sense, but the statement that everything has bugs is already tongue-in-cheek. Anyway, what I really meant was that every language has semantic limitations that can manifest as patterns which the users have to apply. Even Lisp (static type checking) or Haskell (dependent types).