"Strong typing vs. strong testing"
rNOSPAMon at flownet.com
Thu Sep 30 21:56:58 CEST 2010
In article <slrnia9olp.2uc.usenet-nospam at guild.seebs.net>,
Seebs <usenet-nospam at seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2010-09-30, RG <rNOSPAMon at flownet.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnia9fvi.307n.usenet-nospam at guild.seebs.net>,
> > Seebs <usenet-nospam at seebs.net> wrote:
> >> And that's the magic of static typing: It is not a false positive to
> >> warn you that "2L" is not of type int.
> > We'll have to agree to disagree about that.
> No, we won't. It's the *definition* of static typing. Static typing
> is there to give you some guarantees at the expense of not being able
> to express some things without special extra effort. That's why it's
I don't want to quibble over terminology. Whatever label you choose to
put on it ("false positive", "not being able to express some things
without special extra effort") I consider it a deficiency. The costs
are greater than the benefits. Reasonable people can (and obviously do)
More information about the Python-list