Hi Fabrizio, To go off tangent for a second, I remember trying to read Lord of the Rings many times in my youth but gave up because I found the writing dull.
I tried again years later and I found that once I got to around page 100, I was then entranced and read them all over a short period of time. Now here's my (admittedly tenuous) link: The lack of semi colons, default public modifiers, generated property accessors are just a way in and by themselves probably won't sustain your interest for long. However, once you start dappling with further features, things start to change immensely. As for unit testing, I actually use them to design my code: "now I need my code to do this, so I am going to pass these arguments in and expect this back" rather than "if i pass this, then I expect that" Subtle but important point. Its not about exhaustive input testing. Rakesh On 30 July 2012 11:06, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]>wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:51:45 +0200, Rakesh <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I am saying, that in practice, this check at not happening at compile >> time, >> based on my personal experience, has not been a show stopper. At all. >> >> Unit testing definitely made this a non-issue for me. That may not be the >> only solution. >> >> I seem to have stumbled into a 'religious' issue here and there's not much >> I can say to convince you that static compilation hasn't prevented me from >> being way more productive than before. >> >> > Rakesh, this is not only religious but I think that people have many > points here. Kevin just pointed out that unit testing can't be complete. It > would be complete only if one submitted to any piece of code all the > possible combinations of inputs. Of course, this is theory: in practice, it > would suffice to submit all the practical combinations of inputs. This can > be quite large. The fact that you didn't experience problems so far is not > necessarily a strong point: see the inductivist turkey argument by Russel / > Popper. In practice, you might feel strong for a lot of time, until you get > burned. Of course, this is still theory, and in practice I'd say that > personal experience, given that we have a sufficient bunch of data, is an > indicator... for that person. > > Let's put this in another way. I think it's a very strong point to say > that without static typing you loose lots of benefits. Now, we can afford > to lose something in change of something more interesting. What's the > benefit you get with Groovy. When I answered in the previous mail exchange, > my point was that with my experience with Groovy I didn't get much in > return: just writing a few less line of code is not enough, and if it was a > very important point to me I'd rather consider alternatives such as Scala, > which allows less lines of code and it's static. > > > > -- > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > [email protected] > http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
