3 ms·
If you presume that it's OK to rely on compiler errors rather than attempt to exercise all code paths, then yes, Common Lisp, Scheme, Clojure, JavaScript, PHP,
by brlewis 15y ago
If you presume that it's OK to rely on compiler errors rather than attempt to exercise all code paths, then yes, Common Lisp, Scheme, Clojure, JavaScript, PHP, Python, Ruby, Perl, and bash will be more perilous than C, C++, C#, Java, ML and Haskell. (Which of the former group are Lisps?) I disagree with the presumption.
- rbanffy 15y agoI think the most dangerous piece in such system is, indeed, the programmer who thinks the compiler will save him from himself.
- cageface 15y agoMuch less dangerous, in my experience, than the programmer that thinks he can keep a huge system all in his head. I've moved back to static languages after over a decade with dynamic languages and I couldn't be happier to let the compiler take care of a lot of low-level consistency issues so I can focus on the code.
- ataggart 15y agoAn alternative approach is to avoid building systems that require you to keep the whole "huge system" in your head at once.
- ken 15y ago> more perilous than C, C++, C#, Java, ML and Haskell Right. Unless you use features to escape the type system (such as C's casting, Java's reflection, or C#'s dynamic) which every non-trivial program I've ever worked on did.