Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint

[Matthias Blume]

Kenny Tilton <ktilton at nyc.rr.com> writes:

> The other problem with static typing is that it does not address the
> real problem with scaling, viz, the exponential explosion of state
> interdependencies. A compiler cannot check the code I neglect to
> write, leaving state change unpropagated to dependent other state, nor
> can it check the sequence of correctly typed statements to make sure
> state used in calculation X is updated before I use that state.

Yes, the usefulness of static types seems to be inversely proportional
to the imperativeness of one's programming style (Haskell, Miranda).
Static types *really* shine in purely functional settings.  In mostly
functional settings (SML, OCaml) they lose some of their expressive
"punch" if you start playing with mutable data structures.  In
languages that heavily rely on imperative features (mutable state,
object identity, imperative I/O, exceptions) their usefulness goes
increasingly down the drain.

Matthias