Strong Typing vs Strong Testing
4th May 2003
In Strong Typing vs. Strong Testing, Bruce Eckel reconsiders the old idea that languages without strong typing can’t be relied on to create large programs:
This became a puzzle to me: if strong static type checking is so important, why are people able to build big, complex Python programs (with much shorter time and effort than the strong static counterparts) without the disaster that I was so sure would ensue?
His conclusion is that type checking by the compiler does not garauntee the correctness of a program in the first place; it’s just another test. Comprehensive unit testing can more than compensate for the lack of type checking in languages such as Python, especially since the huge productivity bonus provided by Python allows more tests to be written starting at an earlier stage in development.
Incidentally, Bruce recently added an RSS feed.
More recent articles
- Weeknotes: more datasette-secrets, plus a mystery video project - 7th May 2024
- Weeknotes: Llama 3, AI for Data Journalism, llm-evals and datasette-secrets - 23rd April 2024
- Options for accessing Llama 3 from the terminal using LLM - 22nd April 2024
- AI for Data Journalism: demonstrating what we can do with this stuff right now - 17th April 2024
- Three major LLM releases in 24 hours (plus weeknotes) - 10th April 2024
- Building files-to-prompt entirely using Claude 3 Opus - 8th April 2024
- Running OCR against PDFs and images directly in your browser - 30th March 2024
- llm cmd undo last git commit - a new plugin for LLM - 26th March 2024
- Building and testing C extensions for SQLite with ChatGPT Code Interpreter - 23rd March 2024
- Claude and ChatGPT for ad-hoc sidequests - 22nd March 2024