Re: Optional Static Typing
From: Ville Vainio (ville_at_spammers.com)
Date: 12/28/04
- Next message: LutherRevisited: "Repainting"
- Previous message: Alex Martelli: "Re: argument type"
- In reply to: Ryan Paul: "Re: Optional Static Typing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 28 Dec 2004 09:57:20 +0200
>>>>> "Ryan" == Ryan Paul <segphault@sbcglobal.net> writes:
Ryan> I wrote a blog post this morning in which I briefly argue
Ryan> using DbC and predicate based argument constraints instead
Ryan> of static typing. Take a look
I took a look. The first impression is that there is too much stuff to
be added to the language, for a relatively unproven methodology (DbC).
Yes, observe the herecy in my argument; I'm indeed referring to DbC as
being an unproven way to write software. Eiffel never really made it,
and explicit preconditions/postconditions haven't really appeared in
other languages either. I'm not sure I'd like to see Python (which is
not an academic language) take the risk of bloating the language
definition with it. Let Ruby, or Boo, or whatever have a go before
Python. And yes, I've read my OOSC, and my code has its share of
asserts.
Type declarations, on the other hand, are as mainstream as one can
get. Being optional, they would not brutally murder the spirit of all
the good that is Python, contrary to the doom and gloom people have
been painting here and elsewhere. The implementation of CPython would
become more complex, but I trust the people that are implementing it
enough to not be overly concerned.
-- Ville Vainio http://tinyurl.com/2prnb
- Next message: LutherRevisited: "Repainting"
- Previous message: Alex Martelli: "Re: argument type"
- In reply to: Ryan Paul: "Re: Optional Static Typing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
