Home Original page

Python vs .Net

Peter Hansen peter at engcorp.com
Thu Jan 9 10:09:27 EST 2003 
Max Ischenko wrote:
> 
>  Peter Hansen wrote:
> > Someone else wrote:
> >> Static
> >> typing is just another tool to help the development process, and even if
> >> proper testing reduces the advantages of static typing by 50 or 75%,
> >> I'll still take whatever extra advantages I can get when I write code.
> 
> > Not to beat a dead horse, but what if the advantages were reduced by,
> > say, 98%.  Given the loss in productivity involved with all those extra
> > keystrokes for the static typing information for the compiler, you
> > might reach a point where it is *less* effective overall to have the
> > static typing in place.  :-)
> 
> > That is how I feel, at any rate, having spent many many years writing
> > code with static type checking available (C, C++, Delphi and Java).
> 
> Sophisticated type system, like the Hindley-Milner (Haskell)
> could free you from extra typing still providing advantages of the static
> type checking.

I haven't felt in any way hampered by the lack of those "advantages"
so far, and I strongly doubt Haskell would be as nice, for me, to code in
as Python, nor as readable.

I could be wrong... maybe I'll look at Haskell someday, out of curiosity,
but for now I feel no pressure to do that since I'm quite happy with
Python just as it is.

When I *do* finally succumb to some desire to use static types,
presumably out of a desire for performance, I expect to find Pyrex
useful in that respect...

-Peter
More information about the Python-list mailing list