In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Marshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The conversation I would *really* like to have is the one where we > discuss what all the differences are, functionally, between the two, > and what the implications of those differences are, without trying > to address which approach is "right" or "better", because those are > dependent on the problem domain anyway, and because I can > make up my own mind just fine about which one I prefer. > > The comp.lang.functional and comp.lang.lisp people are probably > two of the smartest groups on usenet. (I do not consider myself > a member of either group.) You wouldn't *think* that conversation > would be *so* hard to have. It's hard to have because there's very little to say, which leaves the academics without enough to do to try to justify their existence. This is the long and the short of it: 1. There are mismatches between the desired behavior of code and its actual behavior. Such mismatches are generally referred to as "bugs" or "errors" (and, occasionally, "features"). 2. Some of those mismatches can be detected before the program runs. Some can be detected while the program runs. And some cannot be detected until after the program has finished running. 3. The various techniques for detecting those mismatches impose varying degrees of burden upon the programmer and the user. That's it. Everything else, including but not limited to quibbling over the meaning of the word "type", is nothing but postmodernist claptrap. IMHO of course. rg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
