PEP 3107 and stronger typing (note: probably a newbie question)
bruno.42.desthuilliers at wtf.websiteburo.oops.com
Wed Jul 4 12:20:13 CEST 2007
Paul Rubin a écrit :
> greg <greg at cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> writes:
>>> E.g. your program might pass its test and run properly for years
>>> before some weird piece of input data causes some regexp to not quite
>> Then you get a bug report, you fix it, and you add a test
>> for it so that particular bug can't happen again.
> Why on earth would anyone prefer taking a failure in the field over
> having a static type check make that particular failure impossible?
Because static type checks impose a lot of arbitrary restrictions,
boilerplate code etc, which tends to make code more complicated than it
needs to be, which is a good way of introducing bugs that wouldn't have
existed without static type checks. Depending on the application domain
and some technical and non-technical constraints and requirements, it
(often) happens that it's better to have the application deployed now
with an occasional error message than to have it next year...
And FWIW, when it comes to "weird piece of input data", statically typed
languages are not specially better than dynamic ones...
More information about the Python-list