On May 9, 1:53 pm, Daniel Marcel Eichler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Freitag 09 Mai 2008 10:19:45 schrieb Bruno Desthuilliers: > > > >> very often sees do-nothing catch-all try/catch blocks in Java - > > >> which is way worse than just letting the exception propagate. I > > >> find all this totally pointless, because there's just no way for a > > >> compiler to check if your code is logically correct. > > > > But it's enough if the called method exists and returns the correct > > > type. At least it prevents a crash.
The application has already failed. You'd prefer it silently do the wrong thing than get an explicit error message and stop? > > >>> That's the point. Interfaces garantee that a duck is a duck, an > > >>> not only a chicken that quack. > > > >> Who cares if it's a chicken as long as it quacks when you ask her > > >> to ? Now *This* is the whole point of chicken^Mduck typing, isn't > > >> it ?-) > > > > Ducks can also swim and fly. And if you need a really duck, > > > If you're code expects something that quacks, swims and flies, > > anything that quacks, swims and flies is ok. You just don't care if > > it's a duck or a flying whale with a quacking device tied to it. > > Not the point. It really is. They're only going to give you something they expect to work. They might occasionally make a mistake and give you garbage, but it's not worth the effort of trying to catch it early. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
