Thanks Dave -- A wonderful question that points to the great cultural divide between compile-time versus runtime error trappers.
The compile timers flirt with the notion that somehow the compiling step might actually constitute a *mathematical proof* that the program is correct (if only the language were tightly specified enough, Haskell maybe?). The run-timers think that by unit testing at the atomic level, never letting errors pass silently etc.,, they can patch any few remaining bugs, plus the code itself is just eminently more readable... Bruce Eckel is one of your best and most eloquent writers on this topic, pointing out the superstitions around compiling, as if all kinds of subtle errors couldn't sneak through, including at the level of algorithm. But he's refreshingly non-dogmatic, because after all, our VHLLs (very high level languages) are implemented in these faster lower level ones. It's not either/or but different tools for different jobs. Sometimes the difference between 100x slower than C, and not getting it done at all (or in time) is worth the sacrifice. Speed is the real payoff for type declarations, not immunity from error, as it's really *a lot* easier to write buggy yet executable C than Python, given your average newbie. Anyway, I'd make the argument on economic grounds: Python has a good track record, bright future, and lots of would-be students are eager to learn it, and look to community colleges as logical doors upon which to knock. Taking a side in the compile-time versus run-time debate needn't be a a high priority on anyone's list as we already know: it takes both approaches. But then a lot of faculty are just threatened by another language they don't know, so turning this into some philosophical fist fight works as a delaying maneuver. You may just have to live with the fact that your particular school feels no real competition, whereas in other towns, it's easier to jump on the bandwagon and give students the option. Ruby too while we're at it? Kirby On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 5:24 PM, David MacQuigg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: << SNIP >> > Still, I wonder if there isn't a better way to handle this objection to > Python. I'm thinking of a configuration option in IDLE, something that will > either: > > 1) Run a subset of pychecker tests every time you hit the Run button, or > 2) Insist on declarations in a comment at the start of every function (just > the names, not data types). Any name that isn't already declared gets > immediately painted red. > > I would use #1 if it was no time penalty. #2 seems like "training wheels" > to me, but I would expect some folks who are religious about declarations > might at least find it re-assuring. > > -- Dave > > > _______________________________________________ > Edu-sig mailing list > Edu-sig@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig > _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
