PEP 3107 and stronger typing (note: probably a newbie question)

Diez B. Roggisch deets at nospam.web.de
Fri Jul 20 15:26:20 CEST 2007


Paul Rubin wrote:

> "Diez B. Roggisch" <deets at nospam.web.de> writes:
>>   What does that buy you - where is "I'm crashed becaus I ran out of
>> memory trying to evade the seventh mig" better than "sorry, you will
>> be shot down because I'm not capable of processing more enemie
>> fighters - but hey, at least I'm still here to tell you!"
> 
> Come on, this is real-time embedded software, not some Visual Basic
> app running in Windows.  The internal table sizes etc. are chosen
> based on the amount of physical memory available, which has tended to
> be pretty small until maybe fairly recently.

Since when did we restrict ourselves to such an environment? I was under the
impression that this thread is about the merits and capabilities of static
type-checking?

Besides, even if I accept these constraints - I still think the question is
valid: what goof is a proof if it essentially proofs that the code is
severely limited? After all, memory-allocation _might_ create a crash
depending on the actual circumstances - but it might not. Then, you trade a
mere possibility against a certain limitation.

No, I don't buy that. As I said before: for  the most trivial of tasks that
might be a good thing. But I'm not convinced that restricting one self in
such a manner for more complex tasks isn't going to be a better development
path.

Diez



More information about the Python-list mailing list