На Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:34:16 -0500 "Eric S. Raymond" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have 26 years of experience as a C programmer. Before that I wrote > a lot of LISP, which had the same absence of type safety as Python and > similar capability for introspection. There are sometimes good > reasons to code in C but due to my prior LISP experience I have never > considered "type safety" to be among them -- it's a bad substitute for > being explicit about your invariants and data semantics, what Eiffel > fans call "programming by contract". Python doesn't have built-in support for programming by contract AFAIK. Even if it would, I don't think that people here would bother with learning and actually using it. Personally, I think that being explicit about your invariants is poor substitute for type safety :) Type safety is a lot better than design by contract and unit testing, since it doesn't require additional effort and code to add checks once types are established. This is less code to maintain, consequently less bugs. _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
