English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
bug in "developing applications with objective caml" (english translation)
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2005-04-06 (06:15)
From: Jack Andrews <effbiae@i...>
Subject: Re: some comments on ocaml{lex,yacc} from anovice's POV
Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> writes:
> Can you give an example where dynamic typing has helped you to prototype
> a program more quickly than you could have done with static type
> checking?

if a type checking scheme can infer all the types from
my python scripts, then i'd be happy for my code to be
passed through such a checker.

static type checking is fine, but why would you want to
write more code for the same prototype for the sake of
some type checking.  maybe after the prototype stage,
it could be argued that static type checking is essential,
but i don't think so.

but there are many factors that go towards bulletproof
code.  who's to say that the time spent writing statically
checked code isn't better spent making more runtime checks
(invariants/contracts)?  after all, we all have a time budget.

having all possible static checks with all possible
code succinctness is ideal.  this only implies that compromise
is needed, and the compromise, more often than not, will be
directed by taste.