Den 2021-01-06 kl. 10:32, skrev The Natural Philosopher:
>>>
>>
>> I avoid that technique - it invites other stupid mistakes.
>>
> +1. The smarter the language the stupider the coder in my experience.
> Same goes for smart phones.


Most coder are not smart. They do cut & paste with all error that comes
from it.
Having a language that compiles everything but fails at run-time is a
sure way to the debugger and maintenance hell and high costs.

Some say a good coder get by in any language - I say bullshit.
The language is the coders tool -nothing else.

A truck is the truck drivers tool.
And If I want to move 50 tons of sand efficiently I use a truck - not a
tuk-tuk. Even though I recognize that a tuk.tuk can be used. But it is
the wrong tool for the job.

And the job _most_ coders have is maintenance. And a stupid language is
the wrong tool for that.

Instead - a strongly typed langue is the right tool, since it gives
_compile-time-errors_ that are cheap to fix, instead of run-time errors
that are more expensive to fix. And deployed at customer - and crash ?
downtime is very expensive - at least if the code does something
significant for the customer. One of our customer says €150_000/hr for
downtime.


--
Björn

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05