Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint

[Marshall Spight]

"Scott McIntire" <mcintire_charlestown at comcast.net> wrote in message news:MoEkb.821534$YN5.832338 at sccrnsc01...
> It seems to me that the Agency would have fared better if they just used
> Lisp - which has bignums - and relied more on regression suites and less on
> the belief that static type checking systems would save the day.

I find that an odd conclusion. Given that the cost of bugs is so high
(especially in the cited case) I don't see a good reason for discarding
*anything* that leads to better correctness. Yes, bignums is a good
idea: overflow bugs in this day and age are as bad as C-style buffer
overruns. Why work with a language that allows them when there
are languages that don't?

But why should more regression testing mean less static type checking?
Both are useful. Both catch bugs. Why ditch one for the other?


Marshall