Newsgroups: alt.lang.design,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!mole-end!mat
From: mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
Subject: Re: Comparing productivity: LisP against C++ (was Re: Reference Counting)
Message-ID: <1994Dec24.192418.26037@mole-end.matawan.nj.us>
Organization: :
References: <19941203T221402Z.enag@naggum.no> <BUFF.94Dec15103904@pravda.world> <19941224T093608Z.enag@naggum.no>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 19:24:18 GMT
Lines: 24
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:104840 comp.lang.lisp:16191

In article <19941224T093608Z.enag@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> writes:
> [Nick Mein]
> 
> |   I still feel that there is an important difference between default
> |   error handling ...
 
> but, Nick, don't you _understand_?  in LISP, you get _both_.  the default
> error handling is just that: default.  in C++, what is the default?  ...

Except that in many situations the only correct default is to crash the
application.  Anything else can allow an overlooked error to go out and
do damage.

> ...  even MS-DOS allows you to Abort, Retry
> or Ignore, right?  you C++ program does error handling worse than MS-DOS.

And do you know how often I've cursed that message?  The message doesn't
tell you what's wrong.  At least under UNIX a program that uses perror()
or strerror() can give you a good idea of what went wrong.
-- 
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end				Mark Terribile
 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
	(Training and consulting in C, C++, UNIX, etc.)
