"Strong typing vs. strong testing"
usenet-nospam at seebs.net
Thu Sep 30 18:06:52 CEST 2010
On 2010-09-30, Pascal Bourguignon <pjb at invitado-174.medicalis.es> wrote:
> Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam at hotmail.com> writes:
>> do you have any evidence that this is actually so? That people who
>> program in statically typed languages actually are prone to this "well
>> it compiles so it must be right" attitude?
> Yes, I can witness that it's in the mind set.
So here I am, programming in statically typed languages, and I have never
in my life thought that things which compiled were necessarily right. Not
even when I was an arrogant teenager.
I guess I don't exist. *sob*
> Well, the problem being always the same, the time pressures coming from
> the sales people (who can sell products of which the first line of
> specifications has not been written yet, much less of code), it's always
> a battle to explain that once the code is written, there is still a lot
> of time needed to run tests and debug it.
At $dayjob, they give us months between feature complete and shipping,
because they expect us to spend a lot of time testing, debugging, and
cleaning up. But during that time we are explicitly not adding features...
> But my point is that at least with dynamic programming languages,
> there's an alternative mindset and it is easier to implement such
> a scheme than with static programming languages.
I think this grossly oversimplifies things.
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam at seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
More information about the Python-list