Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!shelby!neon!pescadero.Stanford.EDU!philip
From: philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: just to let you know...
Message-ID: <1990Jul8.194321.9582@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 8 Jul 90 19:43:21 GMT
References: <1990Jul7.025556.4968@smsc.sony.com> <102102@tiger.oxy.edu> <1990Jul5.150741.12535@smsc.sony.com> <9008@goofy.Apple.COM> <1990Jul6.183526.6460@eng.umd.edu>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 18

In article <1990Jul7.025556.4968@smsc.sony.com>, dce@smsc.sony.com
(David Elliott) writes:
> I think that the extra level of type checking that lint gives you
> is one of the goals of ANSI C.  The real problem is often that the
> more checking you do, the more time it takes, and people really do
> like faster compilers.

And getting the wrong answers quickly? Are C compilers any faster than
Pascal compilers of equivalent quality (whatever that means)? If
speed is really such a factor, I would think integrating the various
phases which are separately implemented in traditional C compliers
into one program would probably give a bigger speedup than the time
lost to better type checking. For that matter, is proper type checking
more expensive than implementing arcane rules for default type
conversions?

Philip Machanick
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu