From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <000801c3171d$e263fd40$e3944251@insultant.net>
From: "boyd, rounin" <boyd@insultant.net>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
References: <622b8580ff4fa7e12cb655bf19694fe8@vitanuova.com> <1052497182.736.14.camel@pc118>  <3EBBF24B.3020508@ameritech.net> <1052587025.734.55.camel@pc118>
Subject: Re: [9fans] same functions everywhere
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 19:59:15 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a79bed96-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

From: "John Murdie" <john@cs.york.ac.uk>
> I think that exceptions encourage careless, lazy, analysis and
> programming, and produce code that is unclear and (more) difficult to
> reason about than traditional sequential, predicate-transforming, code.
> Yes, they can be used as a short-hand notation to code e.g. the rule
> "whenever an arithmetic overflow occurs in this section of code, I don't
> care; just quit (or do the calculation again with different parameters,
> or whatever)", but they are also used as an inadequate substitute for
> proper systems analysis and coding.

like when the F-16 rolled inverted when it crossed the equator when flying
south.