On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 02:33 -0700, Dale Wijnand wrote: […] > There is a research that seems to prove that "unit testing isn't enough, > you need static typing", which is very interesting. Here: > http://evanfarrer.blogspot.it/2012/06/unit-testing-isnt-enough-you-need.html
Thanks for this pointer, I shall be reading the full paper later (mainly because it seems interesting but also because he used Python), for now I have just read the blog post. In the context that this is a masters project not a doctoral project or a big funded experiment, indications are it is a nice piece of work. However a number of observations: — the original 3 points would never be held by anyone who was being sensible. 1 should always read "detecting all bugs" and 2 and 3 are just wrong, even from the perspective of a proponent of dynamically typed languages. So given these as starting focus of the hypothesis, the outcome of the project was never in doubt! — the experiment is only one way dynamic → static, to come up with a strong conclusion there needs to be static → dynamic as well. Also some more controls are needed to turn a good personal masters thesis into strong evidence to drive an industry. — are type errors actually important in the codes under examination? — the conclusion is phrased well, and is entirely agreeable in the context of this thesis. — I have no intention of giving up using both dynamically typed and statically type languages. -- 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
