efarrer

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by efarrer 3y ago

   Hi, I'm the author of the blog post and the paper. I certainly do not argue that static typing obviates unit testing. I agree that both are valuable together. I did however find examples where individual unit tests could be deleted bec
2. 2.▲
   by efarrer 3y ago

   Hi, I'm the author of the blog post and the paper. Every bug that was caught by the Haskel transition was verified to exist in the original Python. If I couldn't reproduce it in the Python, I fixed my translation. More information
3. 3.▲
   by efarrer 3y ago

   Hi I'm the author of the blog post and the paper. In the paper I provide a reference to such a claim by proponents of dynamic typing. From my paper: "Because some error detection can be done by both unit testing and static type ch
4. 4.▲
   by efarrer 14y ago

   I agree there are generally trade offs, that's essentially the results of my "60 pages of pointlessness" paper. If you did have time to read the paper you would notice a reference to this book http://my.safaribooksonline.com/book/software-
5. 5.▲
   by efarrer 14y ago

   Thanks for the compliment, one of my goals is to put the science back in computer science.
6. 6.▲
   by efarrer 14y ago

   It seems like you're two criticisms are as follows: 1. The sample size is too small. 2. The quality of the Python code isn't that great. I (the author) would like to address both of these. First of all I completely agree that more resea
7. 7.▲
   by efarrer 14y ago

   I (the author) appreciate the feedback. I believe that many of your criticisms are addressed in the actual paper. First of all I completely agree that my sample size is too small for a conclusive proof. I mention in the paper that I hope th