"Strong typing vs. strong testing"

[Pascal Costanza]

On 30/09/2010 08:09, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
>
>>
>> That argument can be made for dynamic language as well. If you write in
>> dynamic language (e.g. python):
>>
>> def maximum(a, b):
>>      return a if a>  b else b
>>
>> The dynamic language's version of maximum() function is 100% correct --
>> if you passed an uncomparable object, instead of a number, your call of
>> it is incorrect; you just didn't pass the right sort of data. And that's
>> your problem as a caller.
>>
>> In fact, since Python's integer is infinite precision (only bounded by
>> available memory); in practice, Python's version of maximum() has less
>> chance of producing erroneous result.
>
> "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. "
>
> Dynamic typed languages like Python fail in this case on "Never blows
> up".

They don't "blow up". They may throw an exception, on which you can act. 
You make it sound like a core dump, which it isn't.


Pascal

-- 
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/