optional static typing for Python

[Paddy]

On Jan 28, 6:17 am, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> Paddy <paddy3... at googlemail.com> writes:
> > Given the complexity of current microprocessors i'm guessing that
> > their previous testing methods would be too good to just junk in
> > totality because the FDIV bug was not found. Similarly if they were
> > not using formal methods then it makes sense to add it too your
> > arsenal; and unfortunately it takes a mistake like that to allow
> > different methods to be explored and incorporated.
>
> Fair enough.  My main issue was against the notion that random testing
> is the only thing necessary.

Sorry Paul if I may have given that impression, its just that when you
bring in random testing to a design that until then had only directed
tests you can see the bug rate jump up! Think of a hysteresis curve
that has gone flat with current testing methods as not many new bugs
are being found; add a new test methodology - random testing and you
get a new hysteresis curve added as bugs found jump up again. We
eventually ship the chip and get awarded by one of our large customers
for quality - which happened - so thats why I put it forward.
- Paddy.