> And it’s awesome because I can see from across the room, looking at their screen, whether their code is good or bad
Please tell me this is a joke. He may be able to tell whether the code is unreadably bad, but that's about all.
Please tell me this is a joke. He may be able to tell whether the code is unreadably bad, but that's about all.
Come to think of it, that's true for most languages that don't have Java-style static typing annotations interspersed throughout. Functional and imperative code in OCaml or Lua code look noticeably different, too, and there's not a whole lot of stylistic overlap between OCaml, Scheme, and Python's syntaxes. (Lua's is relatively similar to Python's.)
from pg's On Lisp
I've seen this proved wrong time and time again. Have you ever been maintaining some shipped code, and found a crash bug, where you're like: "I can't believe this shipped and we haven't heard about it."
So, I'm probably treating this out-of-context comment more seriously than it deserves, but I like to emphasize the point. Even though there is a set of errors that are detectable from the shape of the source code, there is a much larger set of serious errors that are not.