Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?
psteiger at dcc.ufba.br
Wed Jan 21 06:48:36 CET 2009
2009/1/20 Paul Rubin <"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid>
> Luis Zarrabeitia <kyrie at uh.cu> writes:
> > No wonder you can't get Bruno's point. For the second, static checks
> > to prevent accidents, you have pylint. For the first, not only you
> > are using the wrong tool, but you are barking at python for not
> > having it. Assuming that pylint is perfect (big assumption, but it
> > is up to you to prove where it fails),
> Whaat? Assuming a program is perfect unless a failure is proven
> is not at all a sane approach to getting reliable software. It is
> the person claiming perfection who has to prove the absence of failure.
To quote Carl Sagan (who quoted someone else, i guess),
"Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence"
"I May Be the Walrus."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-list