3 ms·
Spare us the hyperbole and the misrepresentation, please. userbinator makes a very valid and legitimate point: regardless of what safety features a programming
by Pacabel 12y ago
Spare us the hyperbole and the misrepresentation, please.
userbinator makes a very valid and legitimate point: regardless of what safety features a programming language may or may not offer, it's still critical for the programmer to understand exactly what's actually happening.
You can't have true safety through tools alone. Operator knowledge is just as critical as whatever safety features the tool may offer.
- khyryk 12y agoGiven layers upon layers of abstraction, it's often impractical for the programmer to understand exactly what's actually happening. Indeed, that's the entire premise for the existence of more safe languages, which (hope to) eliminate entire classes of bugs.
- kazagistar 12y ago"true safety" like "true Scotsman"? Realistically, you get "better safety". Operator knowledge gets you better safety. Better languages get you better safety. Better libraries get you better safety. Better testing gets you better safety. Often, each of these has diminishing returns, but that just means that the best outcome is one where don't over-focus one at the expense of others.