Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint

[Joe Marshall]

Matthias Blume <find at my.address.elsewhere> writes:

> Ed Avis <ed at membled.com> writes:
>
>> Pascal Costanza <costanza at web.de> writes:
>> 
>> >>Should we then conclude that compile-time syntax checking is not
>> >>worth having?
>> >
>> >No. Syntax errors make the program fail, regardless whether this is
>> >checked at compile-time or at runtime.
>> >
>> >A type "error" detected at compile-time doesn't imply that the
>> >program will fail.
>> 
>> Actually it does, in a statically typed language.
>
> Nitpick: Neither syntactic nor statically checked type errors make
> programs fail. Instead, their presence simply implies the absence of a
> program.  No program, no program failing...

Nitpick:  You are defining as a program that which passes a static type
checker.  What would you like to call those constructs that make sense
to a human and would run correctly despite failing a static type
check?  These are the ones that are interesting to debate.