Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint

[Pascal Costanza]

Marshall Spight wrote:
> "Pascal Costanza" <costanza at web.de> wrote in message news:bn8nhq$l04$1 at f1node01.rhrz.uni-bonn.de...
> 
>>In a statically typed language, when I write a test case that calls a
>>specific method, I need to write at least one class that implements at
>>least that method, otherwise the code won't compile.
>>
>>In a dynamically typed language I can concentrate on writing the test
>>cases first and don't need to write dummy code to make some arbitrary
>>static checker happy.
> 
> 
> This is a non-issue. In both cases, you need the implementing code
> if you want to be able to run the testcase, and you don't need the
> implementing code if you don't.

No, in a dynamically typed language, I don't need the implementation to 
be able to run the testcase.

Among other things:

- the test cases can serve as a kind of todo-list. I run the testsuite, 
and it gives me an exception. This shows what portion of code I can work 
on next.

- when a test case gives me an exception, I can inspect the runtime 
environment and analyze how far the test case got, what it already 
successfully did, what is missing, and maybe even why it is missing. 
With a statically typed language, I wouldn't be able to get that far.

Furthermore, when I am still in the exceptional situation, I can change 
variable settings, define a function on the fly, return some value from 
a yet undefined method by hand to see if it can make the rest of the 
code work, and so on.


Pascal

-- 
Pascal Costanza               University of Bonn
mailto:costanza at web.de        Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de  Römerstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)