This is the one error (apart from some cases where Java is currently unable to infer a generic type when it is absolutely obvious and I have to help it out -- which are likely to be addressed in Java 7) that I think makes *no* sense whatsoever. This is a fine /warning/, but should never have been an /error.
/Otherwise I'd firmly say make the compiler strict as hell. /-- /Jess Holle Casper Bang wrote: > Considering how it's an error in Java to catch a checked exception > which is never thrown, I don't think what you suggest will sound > attractive to this crowd. The Sun compiler is the worst of the bunch, > people who want leniency usually use the Eclipse's compiler from what > I've seen. > > /Casper > > On Oct 23, 11:39 am, "Jim Blackler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> IntelliJ makes a great job of continuing to parse a source file (for >> preview warnings etc) despite errors in the file. In other words the >> whole file doesn't light up red when there's a syntax error early on. >> It appears as if it can't make sense of an expression it sets it to >> 'null' and soldiers on. >> >> When I'm working on a very large codebase, I'd like a compiler that >> did the same. That allowed me to run a program despite a compile error >> or two. Think of it as 'errors as warnings' as opposed to 'warnings as >> errors'. If the execution reached a part of the program that couldn't >> compile, it's translated to a runtime error. >> >> Why would I want to run a broken program? Isn't that the antithesis of >> the view that any red flags as to problems should be raised as soon as >> possible? >> >> Well, it might be that the compile error was caused by another >> programmer, in a part of the program I rarely execute. Then I'd like >> to get on with my work while he fixes it. >> >> It might be that I made a mistake that caused one build error and two >> test errors. If I can run the tests, those errors might be informative >> to me. >> >> Maybe I'd like as much information as possible from my continuous >> integration server, rather than it throwing in the towel before the >> tests, because one function won't compile. >> >> I would never suggest part-broken code should be published or >> deployed, but I think occasionally it could be a useful productivity >> and debugging aid. >> >> Is this a concept that has been tried? >> >> Jim >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
