5 ms·

Not if you are doing it right. The article context is unit testing a dynamic languages vs a static language, saying that you have to do more testing with a sta

by russell 18y ago

Not if you are doing it right. The article context is unit testing a dynamic languages vs a static language, saying that you have to do more testing with a static language. If you do thorough unit testing, the difference isn't all that great. The article implied that unit testing doesn't need to be as thorough with a staticly typed language, That is just plain wrong. You may need to do some additional testing with a dynamic language, but overall you come out way ahead. Python instead of Java, you come out way ahead. Python framework vs a full Java framework, the difference may be 5x or 10x.

scott_s 18y ago
The Python versus Java comparison is a red herring, I think. While Java is more verbose than Python, and some of that verbosity is from its type system, not all of it is. A better comparison would probably be Python versus Scala, or Python versus OCaml.
- russell 18y ago
  True, but I speak of which I know. If someone has such a comparison, I would love to see it. The real measure is tokens not LOC.
  - ankhmoop 18y ago
    Then your knowledge may be too constrained to derive sufficiently representative generalizations. I can highly recommend: http://www.xoltar.org/old_site/misc/static_typing_eckel.html?repost http://www.xoltar.org/old_site/misc/static_typing_eckel.html... The article (from 2003!) is an excellent treatise on the value of a proper type system as compared to Python, and moreover, how Java's type system (or C++, ...) should simply not be equated with "static typing".
- ankhmoop 18y ago
  It's a surprisingly common fallacy to equate Java with Type Systems. Type systems can be far more expressive than what is available in Java, and can and should be used to enforce program correctness, reducing the necessity for additional testing. Type inference, polymorphic typing, structural types -- the available tools in a comprehensive type system are woefully under-explored by most practitioners who consider Java to epitomize type systems.

by russell 18y ago

scott_s 18y ago

The Python versus Java comparison is a red herring, I think. While Java is more verbose than Python, and some of that verbosity is from its type system, not all of it is. A better comparison would probably be Python versus Scala, or Python versus OCaml.

russell 18y ago
True, but I speak of which I know. If someone has such a comparison, I would love to see it. The real measure is tokens not LOC.
- ankhmoop 18y ago
  Then your knowledge may be too constrained to derive sufficiently representative generalizations. I can highly recommend: http://www.xoltar.org/old_site/misc/static_typing_eckel.html?repost http://www.xoltar.org/old_site/misc/static_typing_eckel.html... The article (from 2003!) is an excellent treatise on the value of a proper type system as compared to Python, and moreover, how Java's type system (or C++, ...) should simply not be equated with "static typing".
ankhmoop 18y ago
It's a surprisingly common fallacy to equate Java with Type Systems. Type systems can be far more expressive than what is available in Java, and can and should be used to enforce program correctness, reducing the necessity for additional testing. Type inference, polymorphic typing, structural types -- the available tools in a comprehensive type system are woefully under-explored by most practitioners who consider Java to epitomize type systems.