Not having a separate compilation step absolutely affects error handling. With a compilation step, you can have errors that will only be seen by and must be address by a developer prior to run time. Without one, the run time system, must assign some semantics to the source code, no matter how erroneous it is.

No matter what advisory "signature" you imagine for a function, JS has to assign some run time semantics to that function being called incorrectly. Compiled languages do not have to provide a run time semantics to for signatures that can be statically checked.

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Without one, the run time system, must assign some semantics to the source code, no matter how erroneous it is.

That's just not true; as the comment above points out, Python also has no separate compilation step and yet it did not adopt this philosophy. Interpeted languages were common before JavaScript; in fact, most LISP variants are interpreted, and LISP is older than C.

Moreover, even JavaScript does sometimes throw errors, because sometimes code is simply not valid syntactically, or has no valid semantics even in a language as permissive as JavaScript.

So Eich et al. absolutely could have made more things invalid, despite the risk that end-users would see the resulting error.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Python also has no separate compilation step and yet it did not adopt this philosophy

Yes. It did. It didn't assign exactly the same semantics, but it DOES assign a run time semantic to min().

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'm addressing the bit that I quoted, saying that an interpreted language "must" have valid semantics for all code. I'm not specifically addressing whether or not JavaScript is right in this particular case of min().

...but also, what are you talking about? Python throws a type error if you call min() with no argument.