It took me so long to read this on-and-off that I forgot who linked me to it, but thanks to whoever it was. This is a very interesting read from a clearly experienced language designer who show how deep language design should be. I have come to really dislike how errors are handled in current languages, and how the crappy language support leads to ignoring errors.
It took me so long to read this on-and-off that I forgot who linked me to it, but thanks to whoever it was. This is a very interesting read from a clearly experienced language designer who show how deep language design should be. I have come to really dislike how errors are handled in current languages, and how the crappy language support leads to ignoring errors. The distinction between recoverable and non-recoverable errors seems to be what Java tried for, but taken to such an extreme that a great compiler is necessary, much like earlier compiler advances allowed RISC chips. Having static analysis that can remove most run-time checks does make new approaches feasible. I wish they had managed the nullable type, I've been wanting a good non-null type for a long time. http://joeduffyblog.com/2016/02/07/the-error-model/