"Strong typing vs. strong testing"
Seebs
usenet-nospam at seebs.net
Fri Oct 1 10:49:36 EDT 2010
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Fri Oct 1 10:49:36 EDT 2010
- Previous message (by thread): "Strong typing vs. strong testing"
- Next message (by thread): "Strong typing vs. strong testing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon <pjb at informatimago.com> wrote: > static dynamic > > compiler detects wrong type fail at compile fails at run-time > (with exception > explaining this is > the wrong type) Unless, of course, the "wrong type" happens to be compatible enough to pass. In which case, it's unclear whether it is the "wrong type" or not. > compiler passes wrong type wrong result fails at run-time > (the programmer (with exception > spends hours explaining this is > finding the the wrong type) > problem) I have no clue what exact scenario you're talking about here. I've never seen a bug that could plausibly be described as "compiler passes wrong type" which wasn't picked up quickly by running with more warnings enabled. And on the other end of things, it is not always obvious or straightforward to figure out *why* the dynamic language has ended up with something of the wrong type, or what's wrong with that type. -s -- 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.
- Previous message (by thread): "Strong typing vs. strong testing"
- Next message (by thread): "Strong typing vs. strong testing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list