[plt-scheme] Query language for writing SQL commands

Good. I knew we were in violent agreement. -- Matthias


On Aug 16, 2007, at 6:17 PM, Corey Sweeney wrote:

> I would dispute *compile time errors*, as compile time errors bring
> together the worst of both worlds.  I.E. you have most likely forced
> some of your uses to now call "eval" (like happened when converting
> pattern matching into a macro), and you have delayed the warning
> message beyond where it should be.  I.E. compile time errors should be
> *edit time* errors, and they should pass through anything they can't
> reason about.  I.E. it should be completely transparent to the
> programmer, never blocking valid run-time code.
>
> Corey
>
> On 8/16/07, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 16, 2007, at 5:40 PM, Corey Sweeney wrote:
>>
>>> I would dispute #2 [compile time errors are better than run-time
>>> errors],
>>> but that would lead into a much larger topic.
>>
>> You can't possibly dispute this fact.
>>
>> No producer of any product -- software included -- wouldn't love to
>> live in a world where errors are discovered immediately and fixed
>> before that.
>>
>> You can only dispute the trade-off between the cost it takes to
>> get error messages at compile time (and the cost of figuring out
>> how to fix them) vs the cost of just accepting a run-time error.
>> Since we are all on a Scheme mailing list, I bet that we more or
>> less are in violent agreement on this cost. (Otherwise we'd be
>> on the ML or Haskell list or on the Python or ASM one.)
>>
>> -- Matthias
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> ((lambda (y) (y y)) (lambda (y) (y y)))