Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Because static type checks impose a lot of arbitrary restrictions, > boilerplate code etc, which tends to make code more complicated than > it needs to be, which is a good way of introducing bugs that wouldn't > have existed without static type checks.
Why do you say that? By metrics and anecdotal evidence, Haskell code appears to be at least as compact as Python code. > Depending on the application domain and some technical and > non-technical constraints and requirements, it (often) happens that > it's better to have the application deployed now with an occasional > error message than to have it next year... I suppose that includes the thing I'm currently working on. For some other stuff I've done, such errors would have caused huge hassles, lost customer money, etc. > And FWIW, when it comes to "weird piece of input data", statically > typed languages are not specially better than dynamic ones... I know that ML gives compiler warning messages if you have a pattern match (sort of a variant of a case statement, not a regexp match) which is non-exhaustive. And Haskell's Maybe monad is part of an idiom that handles failing computations (like regexp matches) much more gracefully than Python can. Both of those would help this situation. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
