There's a balance to be struck; When on the flying trapeze of programming I love for walls to get out of my way, but (when I'm heading directly towards them) I rather like for safety nets to be "in my way" in a very real and definitive fashion.
Assuming the net has been put where it belongs, of course. Something like checked exceptions is akin to a safety net that's been mounted vertically, where I'm likely to fly straight into the thing during a perfectly safe somersault and get it tangled around my neck. You can have *too much* of a good thing :)
I also like autocompletion, that and the nanny state analogy... which can so easily be extended into a comparison between dynamic typing and hardcore "Ayn Rand" flavoured libertarianism.
On 2 May[masked]:39, Neil Bartlett <[address removed]>
Indeed, Kevin's attitude
is absolutely typical of the interfering New Labour "nanny state"!
People like Kevin think that everybody needs a compiler to save
themselves from doing something dumb, well I say the compiler should
keep its nose out of my business. What this country needs is less red
tape, get the compiler out of the way of developers and just let us
NB: tongue firmly in cheek...
There's got to be some way
we can bring politics into this as well... Anyone?
This message was sent by Neil Bartlett ([address removed]) from LJC - London Java Community.
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
To learn more about Neil Bartlett, visit his/her member profile
mail: [address removed]
gtalk / msn : [address removed]
vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright
"My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra