3 ms·
Note that you start with "you're doing it wrong" and end with "I personally would much rather". :) You also switch from arguing against type checks overall (cou
by bdr 16y ago
Note that you start with "you're doing it wrong" and end with "I personally would much rather". :) You also switch from arguing against type checks overall (could be Haskell) to arguing against Java.
I'd say that strong compiler checks become more helpful as the size of a program increases. You can keep less of a big program in your head, and big programs have more code paths that could potentially need testing.
- zephyrfalcon 16y agoHm, I didn't mean to argue against all type checks, just the flavor of static typing as described by the OP (i.e., Java). I don't consider Haskell's type system "rigid"; it's strict as hell, but it's also very expressive. Either way, both flavors of static typing require development methods that are very different from Python's, though. My original point was that in Python, you shouldn't really have to worry about types, or checking them (in tests or otherwise). You can, but (IMHO) you'd be going against the grain of the language.