On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 08:48 +0100, Kevin Wright wrote: […] > But... given that we use all these techniques, and that they're known to be > more effective in combination, why then argue that type checking/static > analysis is somehow unique in its ability to be superseded by the others?
I wasn't. > Nobody would claim that formal code review obviates the benefits of pair > programming. Why, then, is it more acceptable to claim that unit testing > can effectively replace static typing? I didn't. I am not sure I am up for repeating my argument from earlier emails. Tweet version (aka tl;dr) Statically compiled and dynamically compiled languages are different and have to used with different mind sets. -- 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
