Python for large projects

[Cameron Laird]

In article <mailman.288.1080056671.742.python-list at python.org>,
Dave Brueck <dave at pythonapocrypha.com> wrote:
>Piet wrote:
>> >>>>> Jacek Generowicz <jacek.generowicz at cern.ch> (JG) wrote:
>>
>> JG> I feel honour-bound to point out that citing static typing (explicit
>> JG> static typing, in particular) as a means of creating more correct
>> JG> programs, to be one of the greatest contemporary myths of software
>> JG> engineering.
			.
			.
			.
>I'm not familiar enough with some of the more modern languages that use
>explicit static typing to know if they offer other advantages beyond helping
>the compiler be more efficient, but from experience I don't hesitate to say
>that the explicit type systems of Pascal/C++/Java seem to do more harm than
>good (meaning that if they provide some benefit, overall it's still a net
>negative due to the extra burden they place on the developers). For large
>projects in particular they seem to get in the way more and more as the project
>increases in size.
>
>-Dave
>
>

I want to call attention to this.  Dave and I appear to be in
agreement that, while common wisdom in our field is that C++,
Java, and so on, are serious languages that are the only 
realistic choices for large projects, we are both saying that
they're at a particular DISadvantage there.  If you have a
big job, you *particularly* need to look at Python (or Erlang,
or Eiffel, or ...)
-- 

Cameron Laird <claird at phaseit.net>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net