On 10/ 1/10 02:57 AM, Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
Nick Keighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> writes:
On 27 Sep, 20:29, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:
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.
--
Ian Collins
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
