At 01:52 PM 10/17/2006, $Bill Luebkert wrote: >John Deighan wrote: > > > Trust me - all code has bugs in it. > >That's not true. If you slap a million lines together, then you >have a better chance, but a good programmer in a proper environment >doesn't write buggy code (or at least removes the bugs before going >into production). You'd never get a job in a financial/aerospace/medical >field with that attitude.
You can't have it both ways. Either a good programmer never writes code with bugs in it, or he does, and the issue is how many bugs and how long does it take to "remove the bugs before going into production". > > The issue is how easy/hard it is > > to create bugs, and how hard it is to find them. > >Creating bugs means making mistakes. Some languages help to remedy >the problem by being highly typed, structured, OO, etc - which also >makes them take much longer to write, but harder to write bugs in. >Perl isn't written that way - it's quick and dirty - you have to do >the work yourself to keep from being buggy and you benefit by being >up and running much faster. Some languages make it much harder to write buggy code. In my experience, at least, the better languages both make it harder to write buggy code AND produce shorter and simpler code. It's much more a matter of good language design than it is adding a bunch of features to the language. BTW, I hope noone is taking my comments as being Anti-Perl. It's actually a very well designed language. I've been using it in a commercial environment for over 10 years now, and in fact, it was me who chose it in the first place. I can think of ways to improve it, but I think most of them are being addressed in Perl 6. _______________________________________________ Perl-Win32-Users mailing list Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
