Python for large projects

[Jacek Generowicz]

Jacek Generowicz <jacek.generowicz at cern.ch> writes:

> Stefan Axelsson <crap1234 at hotmail.com> writes:

> > While the first statement is true on the face of it. The second is
> > also true on the face of it, but probably not what you meant. It's
> > that if the unit tests have been designed to find deviations from
> > the 'expected' behaviour they will. Whether the 'expected' behaviour
> > was actually the 'specified' behaviour is another question entirely.
> > Programmers/designers misunderstanding the specification is all to
> > common an occurrence.

Which is what my "90% of the real problem vs 100% of the wrong
problem" comments, in the post you replied to, were all about.

> No argument there.  However, static type systems' misunderstanding of
> the problem is an even more common occurence ... basically because
> static type systems don't even attempt to understand the problem. They
> interfere with the developer regardless.

And here I omitted to stress something important. Static type systems
reject programs: they forbid you to even try running them. Test suites
merely advise.

Sometimes I want to run a program that I _know_ full well is full of
bugs, dammit!  During the whole of the development process, the
program is full of bugs, by definition ... I still want to be able to
see how it behaves, in order to investigate what to do about
it. Static type systems all too often forbid me to do this. (Even
Hindley Milner type systems.)