> If the compiler knows my code will crash, it should simply refuse to compile it until I fix it.
Sure but what if it doesn't know that, then I won't complain about the next best opportunity, which is pressing F5 once and seeing the code I just typed doesn't work as intended.
> Static types provide not just non crash guarantees
How about no?
> Ah, the famous fallacy "We can't reach 100% so let's just be content with 0%".
If using a void-pointer parameter once in a blue moon for some convenience (callback function pointer), how is that 0% and not 99%? I recognize I've written too many comments, seeing as the replies are starting to get extremely poor. Ignoring the rest.
How did you infer that that's not immediately?
> If the compiler knows my code will crash, it should simply refuse to compile it until I fix it.
Sure but what if it doesn't know that, then I won't complain about the next best opportunity, which is pressing F5 once and seeing the code I just typed doesn't work as intended.
> Static types provide not just non crash guarantees
How about no?
> Ah, the famous fallacy "We can't reach 100% so let's just be content with 0%".
If using a void-pointer parameter once in a blue moon for some convenience (callback function pointer), how is that 0% and not 99%? I recognize I've written too many comments, seeing as the replies are starting to get extremely poor. Ignoring the rest.