On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2011, at 1:55 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
>
>> Being able to detect when a condition is violated is not equivalent to
>> knowing that it always holds.
>
> Yes, this is the point I mangled in that "dynamic is necessary [in JS] ...
> and gives strictly more information (and more relevant information!)"
> sentence. I should have written "static+dynamic gives strictly more
> information."
>
> Sorry about that -- not a profound point, but something that came out in the
> exchange John J. Barton and I had about static program analysis not being
> enough. It's not enough, but it can do a lot with dynamic analysis in
> partnership.
I'll also revise:
Dimitris Vardoulakis's work on CFA2, the algorithm behind doctorjs,
demonstrates that my claims about static analysis being a dead end are
wrong. In fact it provides further evidence that innovation in tools
can help dynamic languages keep their core advantages while overcoming
some of their challenges.
jjb
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
