This gets my vote for quote-of-the-week. Andrew, I seem to recall you are
collecting this sort of stuff.
From: quinn@yak.ugcs.caltech.edu (Quinn Dunkan)
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: not safe at all
Date: 13 Jul 2001 19:12:51 GMT
...
The static people talk about rigorously enforced interfaces, correctness
proofs, contracts, etc. The dynamic people talk about rigorously
enforced testing and say that types only catch a small portion of
possible errors. The static people retort that they don't trust tests
to cover everything or not have bugs and why write tests for stuff the
compiler should test for you, so you shouldn't rely on *only* tests, and
besides static types don't catch a small portion, but a large portion of
errors. The dynamic people say no program or test is perfect and static
typing is not worth the cost in language complexity and design
difficulty for the gain in eliminating a few tests that would have been
easy to write anyway, since static types catch a small portion of
errors, not a large portion. The static people say static types don't
add that much language complexity, and it's not design "difficulty" but
an essential part of the process, and they catch a large portion, not a
small portion. The dynamic people say they add enormous complexity, and
they catch a small portion, and point out that the static people have
bad breath. The static people assert that the dynamic people must be
too stupid to cope with a real language and rigorous requirements, and
are ugly besides.
This is when both sides start throwing rocks.
...
Skip
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4