steveh Wrote: > bearophile Wrote: > > > Simen kjaeraas: > > > > > Context-sensitive constructor disabling is a theoretical possibility, but > > > seems to me to conflict with D's other goals. > > > > It's time to update those goals. > > I studied the situation further. Now I've decided to leave D. I tried to cope > with all overly complex type system quirks, but have had enough of it now. > These two months with D truly opened my eyes. It means I won't touch C++ or > Java either. > > My next goal is to use an untyped (less types = better) language which > concentrates on cool syntax. Intensive test suites guarantee safety and > quality. An extreme version of TDD. > > I'm building an IDE (Eclipse) extension [in Java :( ] for automatically > injecting basic tests to typical programs. This way the tests only slow down > the debug build. The production version runs at maximum speed. > > Another solution is exploratory testing. I test stuff interactively using a > REPL. These reports and guidelines can be written down in .doc word > documents. I learnt this idea from Paul Graham and his new language.
Your conclusion that less types = better is patently incorrect. While I like Ruby and test driven development that doesn't obviate the need for a strong type system. tests can only prove that whatever invalid inputs you test for are accounted for. Tests CANNOT prove the correctness of your system for all inputs. Frankly, I wouldn't use software you wrote with this attitude for a facebook app let alone any system with a smidgen of reliability requirements.
