Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!julienas!news.fnet.fr!ilog!puget
From: puget@corvisart.ilog.fr (Jean-Francois Puget)
Subject: Re: Why hasn't Prolog Taken over the World?
Message-ID: <1994Nov23.090105.7124@ilog.fr>
Sender: puget@corvisart (Jean-Francois Puget)
Nntp-Posting-Host: corvisart
Organization: ILOG S.A., France
References: <3a6lf4$mk5@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> <3aal5c$b4d@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <citrin-1511941431140001@ecemac-citrin.colorado.edu> <D91A1BO.94Nov16141507@Ankara.meryl.csd.uu.se> <citrin-1611940810340001@saas-fee.cs.colorado.edu> <3atq9b$550@deneb>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 94 09:01:05 GMT
Lines: 20

In article <3atq9b$550@deneb>, egh@mda.ca (Eric Hawthorne) writes:
|> 
|> Personally, I don't care whether my type error shows up at 
|> run-time or compile time. It's all the same to me if I have
|> an effective debugging environment.
|> 
|> Eric 
|> 

There is an important difference between detecting a given type of error at run
time or at compile time. In the latter case, all errors are detected when you 
compile. In the former case, you detect only the errors that happen in
executed code. Thus it is very likely that you will miss some, unless you have
an exhaustive set of test cases.

-- 
  Jean-Francois Puget		 net : puget@ilog.fr
  ILOG S.A.                      url : http://www.ilog.fr
  2 Avenue Gallieni - BP 85	 tel : +33 1 46 63 66 66
  F-94253 Gentilly Cedex FRANCE	 fax : +33 1 46 63 15 82
