Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> writes: > 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.
Well, at least it passes the test. I would like to see a peer reviewed proof that the program is correct ;-) But indeed tests are required in any case. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
