I come not to bury C++, but to praise it...

Cameron Laird claird at lairds.com
Wed Jan 14 19:30:13 CET 2004


In article <bu3vku$den0t$1 at ID-46268.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Derek <none at none.com> wrote:
			.
			.
			.
>Yes, I prefer compile-time checks to run-time checks.  I don't know
>which method is "better" by any objective measure, but I prefer to
>know if there is a problem as early as possible.  It's not hard to
>make a change in Python that will go unnoticed until much later, and
>in the real world test suites often don't have enough coverage to
>catch every runtime error up front.
>
>

Got it; thanks.  There's been extensive discussion here and elsewhere
on just this point.  One of us might follow-up in a bit with a refer-
ence to highlights ...  While I spend most of my time in the Trotskyite
fringe of those who proclaim that Testing Is The Answer, and that 
compile-time checks count for little, I'm deeply sympathetic with the
anguish of letting the latter go.  'Fact, I just spent the morning do-
ing "-Wall" to yet another corpus of unsanitized code, and *I* feel a
lot better for it.
-- 

Cameron Laird <claird at phaseit.net>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net



More information about the Python-list mailing list