Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint

[Pascal Costanza]

Adrian Hey wrote:

> Your right, I haven't. I would say the overwhelming majority of programs
> "out there" fall into this category.

Do you have empirical evidence for this statement? Maybe your sample set 
is not representative?

>>>As for dynamics, I don't think anybody would deny the usefulness of a
>>>dynamic type system as a *supplement to* the static type system.
>>
>>I don't deny that static type systems can be a useful supplement to a
>>dynamic type system in certain contexts.
> 
> 
> I don't think anybody who read your posts would get that impression :-) 

Well, then they don't read close enough. In my very posting wrt to this 
topic, I have suggested soft typing as a good compromise. See 
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bn687n%24l6u%241%40f1node01.rhrz.uni-bonn.de

Yes, you can certainly tell that I am a fan of dynamic type systems. So 
what? Someone has asked why one would want to get rid of a static type 
system, and I am responding.

(Thanks for the smiley. ;)

>>Your claim implies that such code should not be written,
> 
> 
> What claim?

"Most code [...] should be [...] checked for type errors at compile time."


>>at least not "most of the time" (whatever that means).
> 
> 
> Dunno who you're quoting there, but it isn't me.


Pascal