Paul Rubin wrote: > "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> What does that buy you - where is "I'm crashed becaus I ran out of >> memory trying to evade the seventh mig" better than "sorry, you will >> be shot down because I'm not capable of processing more enemie >> fighters - but hey, at least I'm still here to tell you!" > > Come on, this is real-time embedded software, not some Visual Basic > app running in Windows. The internal table sizes etc. are chosen > based on the amount of physical memory available, which has tended to > be pretty small until maybe fairly recently.
Since when did we restrict ourselves to such an environment? I was under the impression that this thread is about the merits and capabilities of static type-checking? Besides, even if I accept these constraints - I still think the question is valid: what goof is a proof if it essentially proofs that the code is severely limited? After all, memory-allocation _might_ create a crash depending on the actual circumstances - but it might not. Then, you trade a mere possibility against a certain limitation. No, I don't buy that. As I said before: for the most trivial of tasks that might be a good thing. But I'm not convinced that restricting one self in such a manner for more complex tasks isn't going to be a better development path. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
