> > > Yes, and the code takes hours to run. It's not fun > > when > > > something is attacking item 99 million out of 100 > > million > > > and blows up on a stupid typo because it just happens > > to > > > hit a codepath that the first 98,999,999 items didn't > > > hit. > > > > No one uses interactive development? I am surprised. > > Can you explain how that would make a difference in this > context? If it takes hours to hit the problem why would > interactive development make that faster?
I think in LISP and maybe Smalltalk you could change the code and then restart execution rather than starting over.
But that assumes that the root cause of the error is where the error was raised (or close to it). Often times it is not (unless I stick in all my isinstance checks), so the actual error entered the application state an hour ago, the consequence just wasn't felt until later. But then in a Smalltalk environment I suppose you could go manual fiddle with the objects that have bad values.
I personally would still just start over. I'd eventually have to start execution from the begining, anyway, and such object twiddling gives me the willies.
Previous Topic
