"Strong typing vs. strong testing"

TheFlyingDutchman zzbbaadd at aol.com
Fri Oct 1 08:46:05 CEST 2010


On Sep 30, 10:37 pm, RG <rNOSPA... at flownet.com> wrote:
> In article <87tyl63cag.... at mail.geddis.org>,
>  Don Geddis <d... at geddis.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Keith Thompson <ks... at mib.org> wrote on Thu, 30 Sep 2010:
> > > RG <rNOSPA... at flownet.com> writes:
> > >> You're missing a lot of context.  I'm not trying to criticize C, just to
> > >> refute a false claim that was made about it.
> > > Can you cite the article that made this false claim, and exactly what
> > > the false claim was?
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/431925448da59481
>
> >         Message-ID:
> >         <0497e39d-6bd1-429d-a86f-f4c89babe... at u31g2000pru.googlegroups.com>
> >         From: TheFlyingDutchman <zzbba... at aol.com>
> >         Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
>
> >         [...]
> >         in C I can have a function maximum(int a, int b) that will always
> >         work. Never blow up, and never give an invalid answer. If someone
> >         tries to call it incorrectly it is a compile error.
> >         [...]
>
> > ___________________________________________________________________________­___
> > _
> > Don Geddis                  http://don.geddis.org/             
> > d... at geddis.org
>
> Thanks, Don.
>
> rg-

Thanks from me as well, Don. I was worried that people would start to
believe that the original statement was what you said it was:

"I'm not even saying it's a flaw in the language.  All I'm saying is
that
the original claim -- that any error in a C program will be caught by
the compiler -- is false, and more specifically, that it can be
demonstrated to be false without appeal to unknown run-time input."




More information about the Python-list mailing list