Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!w38g2000pri.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: TheFlyingDutchman <zzbba...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.functional
Subject: Re: "Strong typing vs. strong testing"
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <91b80135-31d2-4faf-baaf-d57c1fb1b343@w38g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
References: <i7eodu$eq0$1@news.eternal-september.org> <rNOSPAMon-70B906.15024329092010@news.albasani.net>
 <07f75df3-778d-4e3d-8aa0-fbd4bd108a57@k22g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
 <rNOSPAMon-D56612.15145129092010@news.albasani.net> <lnk4m45eu0.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
 <rNOSPAMon-AF49F7.16473829092010@news.albasani.net> <lnfwws5b5t.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
 <rNOSPAMon-30C018.18010229092010@news.albasani.net> <slrnia7pa1.280r.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net>
 <4ca421a1$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au> <d87893f4-7798-41f3-8f97-57d02ab5fb8c@w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
 <4ca44fea@dnews.tpgi.com.au> <676fe660-2761-487a-9472-e6232f659d1e@q40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
 <87wrq3m61p.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> <0929e9df-5d0c-4754-975f-c8c1918f3cbc@b14g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
 <BqSdnZnix6Av8CjRnZ2dnUVZ5uqdnZ2d@giganews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.36.154.13
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1286992552 30571 127.0.0.1 (13 Oct 2010 17:55:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:55:52 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: w38g2000pri.googlegroups.com; posting-host=75.36.154.13; posting-account=9bWHAAoAAAAxSFC_2O_ssTETNW9NhMbW
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 Trident/4.0; GTB6.5; (R1 1.6); SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729;
 .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; AskTbBT5/5.8.0.12304),gzip(gfe)

On Oct 13, 1:28=A0am, Uno <merrilljen...@q.com> wrote:
> TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
> >>> is that when execution halts, they normally give a call
> >>> stack and usually a good reason for why things couldn't continue. As
> >>> opposed to compiled languages which present you with a blank screen
> >>> and force you to - fire up a debugger, or much much worse, look at a
> >>> core dump - to try and discern all the information the interpreter
> >>> presents to you immediately.
> >> Theorically, a compiler for a static programming language has even mor=
e
> >> information about the program, so it should be able to produce even
> >> better backtrace in case of problem...
>
> > I guess compilers put the information necessary for a backtrace at
> > program termination in the executable if you specify the DEBUG option.
> > But what code is in control at that point that would be able to print
> > out a call stack? I am talking about a compiler that generates object
> > code that is executed by the hardware and OS, not a compiler that
> > makes instructions for a virtual machine.
>
> I thought I was the flying dutchman. =A0Casey den Hollander is my good
> friend, und ik snakk et ooch! =A0Tja.
> --
> Uno- Hide quoted text -
>
I thought maybe this - "und ik snakk et ooch!  Tja:" was in Dutch, but
Yahoo! Babelfish translates it to English as "und I snakk et ooch!
Tja", which leads me to believe you are posting after several hours in
an Amsterdam Cannabis House with a wireless connection. Nonetheless, I
would be willing to change my nickname for 10 Euro's and directions to
the best Amsterdam "coffee shop".