On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 12:06 +0200, Fabrizio Giudici wrote: […] > 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.
But that is the point statically type and dynamically type are different with different trade-offs. It is not a question of which one is right and which one is wrong arbitrarily. Context of use, environment, purpose, who is doing what, all contribute to which is the right tool for a given job. The point about testing is as valid for statically typed systems as for dynamically typed systems. My expectation is though that unit testing is a whole lot less important than integration and system testing is. I think the history of XP and TDD, and the other agile processes is that most programmers have become too introverted and unit test focused. Dan North's impetus to move more towards requirements and behaviours is useful. In the end though the test suites will likely be fundamentally the same no matter the language be statically or dynamically typed. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
