Re: [Pika-dev] xl, xxl, and mxl

[Robert Collins]

On Sun, 2004-09-05 at 14:32 -0700, Jeremy Shaw wrote:
> At Sun, 05 Sep 2004 22:32:38 +0200,
> Jose A. Ortega Ruiz wrote:
> > 
> > [1  <multipart/signed (7bit)>]
> > [1.1  <text/plain (7bit)>]
> > Jeremy Shaw <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> > >
> > > The site is a bit light on details, but it seems like using scheme 
> > > would bring a whole host of disadvantages -- run-time type errors, 
> > > non-termination, etc.
> > >
> > 
> > Hm. I won't enter in yet another debate of static vs. dynamic typing,
> > but i don't really see how Make is free from the (potential) drawbacks
> > you mention (writing a non-terminating makefile, or a non-terminating
> > program in any language for that matter, seems rather straightforward).
> 
> I do not mean to say that make is free of those problems, just that is
> should be :) On the other hand, make does do better in those two areas
> than some other langages.

Make is written in C...as are most programs when you trace back enough.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part