Douglas Alan <nessus at mit.edu> wrote in comp.lang.python: > "Steve Holden" <sholden at holdenweb.com> writes: > > > That's correct. Python gives you "enough rope to shoot yourself in > > the foot", and so does not offer the protection schemes associated > > with statically-types languages like Java and C++. This increases > > the flexibility of the language, at the (slight) risk of errors > > which would not occur in Java or C++. > > Actually, there's no extra flexibility than if you used different > syntaxes for variable initialization and variable assignment. > > > There is magic you can do to restrict operations of this kind, but most > > Python programmers are happy to accept the language as it is, since in > > practise this doesn't appear to be a problem. > > In practice it is a *very* significant problem. This is certainly one > of the largest sources of bugs. And it is, annoyingly enough, one of > the few valid complaints that Perl devotees can make against Python. Huh? In Perl it's even worse. Python will complain if you use a variable it hasn't heard of, Perl just assumes it has a value of 0... > > Look at it this way: you can spend the 60% time saving you will make > > by programming in Python to make sure you have not made such errors! > > Why not be honest: It's a wart on the language. But no language is > perfect and Python is far better than most. It's absolutely not a wart, it is a strength. Complete programmer freedom is the *point* of much of Python. -- Remco Gerlich
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