Re: Octave and cargo cult programmingHello

[Sergei Steshenko]

>________________________________
> From: Judd Storrs <address@hidden>
>To: Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden> 
>Cc: Octave users list <address@hidden> 
>Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 1:08 AM
>Subject: Re: Octave and cargo cult programmingHello
> 
>
>On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>So, because the warning does not tell me what the line number, but error 
>luckily does, I rely fundamentally everywhere on this error.
>>
>
>
>Oh, I didn't realize that was another difference between warning and error. I 
>have also spent a lot of time chasing down where warnings are coming from and 
>was frustrated that I couldn't get line numbers. I agree that tracing warnings 
>to source is quite frustrating and cumbersome (I was recently tracing a 
>non-broadcasting warning--next time I'll have to try to convert the warning to 
>an error--that's actually another annoying thing: given the warning message, 
>how to find the corresponding id string). It would be nice if warnings at 
>least indicated the current function name and line number (not necessarily the 
>entire stack trace that you get from error).
>
>
>
>
>--judd 
>
>

In the nineties, working as a VLSI designer, I started dealing seriously with 
programming (still remaining a VLSI designer) for two major reasons:

1) our "professional" programmers were very talented at choosing _wrong_ 
defaults - _never_ in practical work I could use their defaults;
2) they were equally talented in their useless warning and error messages.

So, I was gradually rewriting their CAD/EDA stuff.


Regards,
  Sergei.