> The compiler bothers me more. When it encounters an error it seems to give up on the rest of the file. This makes the iteration loop quite slow - write code, get an error, fix the error, rebuild. There's very little chance to fix errors in bulk, especially if you're focussed on one module.
Are there languages where this actually works, in actual practice? No compiler I have ever used in anger was reliable enough in its error recovery, no matter how hard it tried. So when working on the command line, I always scroll up to the first error and ignore the following ones. Any work the compiler puts into showing me more than the first error is wasted, from my point of view. And it wastes my time, so I view this as a net negative. Again, not the lofty idea, but the practical implementation in compilers I've used. (IDEs can be better. IntelliJ is sometimes even actually good. Not always.)
The author mentions Rust, is the Rust compiler really that good at reliably guessing the correct way to recover? Even in the face of, say, complex type errors?
zem•21m ago
if nothing else, you could guess that a compilation error within a function body would still let other functions be compiled, and proceed on that basis.
derdi•32m ago
Are there languages where this actually works, in actual practice? No compiler I have ever used in anger was reliable enough in its error recovery, no matter how hard it tried. So when working on the command line, I always scroll up to the first error and ignore the following ones. Any work the compiler puts into showing me more than the first error is wasted, from my point of view. And it wastes my time, so I view this as a net negative. Again, not the lofty idea, but the practical implementation in compilers I've used. (IDEs can be better. IntelliJ is sometimes even actually good. Not always.)
The author mentions Rust, is the Rust compiler really that good at reliably guessing the correct way to recover? Even in the face of, say, complex type errors?
zem•21m ago