On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 09:14:17PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > Try comparing a python program that aborts due to an exception with a > > program that handles the error and emits a proper error message. Then you > > might begin to approximate the subject. > > You're comparing apples (program in language A which does handle errors > correctly) with oranges (program in language B which does _not_). Actually, you did that - your original claim was about significant reductions in code size and complexity [by not handling errors]. I have merely continually pointed out that this is a really bad tradeoff. > That's not the subject, as far as I am concerned. For me, the premise is a > program (in whatever language you'd like) whose programmer didn't handle > system errors correctly (because if they do there's basically no problem, > right?) which runs into a system error. > > Said error necessarily causes either a sudden program death or bad > (miscalculated, incomplete, ...) output. I do know which of these two > results _I_ prefer. Yes, I'll take the misrendered window over the crashed X server any day of the week. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature