"Strong typing vs. strong testing"
Pascal J. Bourguignon
pjb at informatimago.com
Thu Sep 30 22:20:20 CEST 2010
Ian Collins <ian-news at hotmail.com> writes:
> On 10/ 1/10 02:57 AM, Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>> Nick Keighley<nick_keighley_nospam at hotmail.com> writes:
>>> On 27 Sep, 20:29, p... at informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
>>>> If you start with the mindset of static type checking, you will consider
>>>> that your types are checked and if the types at the interface of two
>>>> modules matches you'll think that everything's ok. And six months later
>>>> you Mars mission will crash.
>>> 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.
>> 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. I've even technical managers,
>> who should know better, expecting that we write bug-free code in the
>> first place (when we didn't even have a specification to begin with!).
> Which is why agile practices such as TDD have an edge. If it compiles
> *and* passes all its tests, it must be right.
Well, at least it passes the test. I would like to see a peer reviewed
proof that the program is correct ;-)
But indeed tests are required in any case.
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
More information about the Python-list