From: Dossy <dossy@...>
Date: 2002-09-30T00:49:08+09:00
Subject: Re: thoughts on typelessness

On 2002.09.29, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <qrczak@knm.org.pl> wrote:
> You might as well say that exceptions are a redundant mechanism
> because you might just return some garbage or nil and find the error
> during testing.

You're right.  I might as well just say that, and sometimes, I actually
do.

> The question is how easy is to find the actual error basing on the
> diagnostic. In my experience static typing makes it much easier,
> especially when you change something in a working program and want
> to update all places which depend on the change.

Sounds like static typing is an excuse not to always aim for as close to
100% test coverage as possible.

Is this a wise approach?  Is there ever a time that the program doesn't
benefit from having test coverage closer to 100%?

I think working in a dynamically typed language almost /forces/ me to
work harder at maintaining good/high test coverage which the program
clearly benefits from.  Statically typed languages give a false sense of
security and correctness and thus make it easier for people to "make
excuses" for why they don't /need/ better test coverage.

My two cents, of course,

-- Dossy

-- 
Dossy Shiobara                       mail: dossy@panoptic.com 
Panoptic Computer Network             web: http://www.panoptic.com/ 
  "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
    folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)