> Perhaps I misinterpreted your meaning, because you seem to be advocating using programming and scripting languages without actually bothering to learn them. Of course this can, will and does lead to very bad effects.
You're arguing that people should read the API before doing anything with it. Parent's point is that this class of error can be avoided by strong typing (eg, via algebraic datatypes), negating the chance that it would happen in the first place. Which, I think, is the right way to look at the problem. But certainly, if you do have to use a weakly-typed, unsafe language which does not provide this kind of guarantee, be sure to read the documentation twice.
Which doesn't mean you won't get bitten when it turns out that the person writing a library you rely didn't RTFM.
You're arguing that people should read the API before doing anything with it. Parent's point is that this class of error can be avoided by strong typing (eg, via algebraic datatypes), negating the chance that it would happen in the first place. Which, I think, is the right way to look at the problem. But certainly, if you do have to use a weakly-typed, unsafe language which does not provide this kind of guarantee, be sure to read the documentation twice.
Which doesn't mean you won't get bitten when it turns out that the person writing a library you rely didn't RTFM.