7 ms·
More moving parts being more error prone is not generally a controversial opinion.
by smosher 13y ago
More moving parts being more error prone is not generally a controversial opinion.
- vidarh 13y agoThis argument can just as easily be used to support a claim that generating C via string manipulation can very well be less error prone than relying on a huge, complex API like LLVM. It is not a given that there are "more moving parts" in generating C output from a compiler than in using LLVM.
- smosher 13y agoIt is not a given that there are "more moving parts" in generating C output from a compiler than in using LLVM. While that's a true enough statement by itself, your snipe conveniently skips half of the process in question.
- coldtea 13y ago>It is not a given that there are "more moving parts" in generating C output from a compiler than in using LLVM. No, but it's a given that the LLVM moving parts have been already written, and are tested by millions. Your moving parts in your own solution, you'd have to write yourself.
- vidarh 13y agoThe LLVM moving-parts, yes, but you need to write code to use them too, and it's not a give that there are more moving parts in generating C output that those. > Your moving parts in your own solution, you'd have to write yourself. That's not always a bad thing for error rates, if the alternative is figuring out to use a massive library correctly.