are syntax errors really that big a problem anyway? i would have
though run-time errors are a lot worse. and those can be avoided with
"proper" programming (encapsulation!)
i just dont like the idea of a compiler doing a large chunk of the
work for me. i'd rather keep everything as low-level as possible.
pete.
> Integrating interpretors into editors with some kind of automatic syntax
> correction is surely useful to avoid errors, but far away from allowing
> errors (like the guitar).
> Maybe the point here is that computers are inherent digital, i.e. discrete,
> whereas our physical environment is continuous, which incorporates some sort
> of built-in error tolerance.
>
> Your last point leads away from the actual discussion, as these errors are
> not directly related to the act of playing.
>
> Thomas
>
> alex wrote::
> Yes all good points, although perhaps the reason why programming
> languages are so unforgiving is more to do with the requirements of
> business logic than any innate restrictions on computer readable
> languages.
>
> Languages where you can't have syntax errors are interesting here (where
> any combination of the alphabet is syntactically valid), as is Craig's
> livecoding with computer readable english, interactive fiction style.
>
> Integrating interpreters into editors (for example with eclipse) allows
> an editing environment rich enough to help avoid errors too.
>
> Also there are probably some errors you can do with a drumkit that would
> lead to a crash of the whole performance, such as break your last stick
> or fall off your stool.
>
> alex
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Sep 07 2006 - 21:32:27 BST