On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:48:55 -0700, "Bryan Sant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On 2/14/07, Hans Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I disagree that duck typing (which is a feature of ruby also) is a > > problem. I find it much more useful than not. I do agree however that it > > is important to document what is accepted and expected for your methods. > > Doesn't this defacto need to document your parameters bring back much > of the verbosity of a statically typed language? I'm not trying to be > inflammatory, it's a sincere question I've had for a long time. I've > avoided using dynamic languages partly for this reason.
Not really. First, because such "type information" is often encoded in the parameter name itself -- "count" is (or should) always be an int, and I don't need a type declaration to tell me that. And then you have doctest (http://www.python.org/doc/lib/module-doctest.html) which is the best thing since sliced bread. (Really!) But more importantly, leaving out type declarations is only a small part of what makes dynamic languages so productive: http://spyced.blogspot.com/2005/06/anders-heljsberg-doesnt-grok-python.html Also: http://dirtsimple.org/2004/12/python-is-not-java.html -Jonathan /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
