On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:18:20 +0100, Arve Knudsen wrote: > 2011/2/17 Jürgen Hermann <[email protected]> > > > > It has to? Why? For religious reasons? > > > > No. It's because you can easily turn off what you see, but it's hard to > > turn on what you don't see. > > > > After programming a lot of C/C++, this is the first time I've heard anyone > complain that gcc (or any other compiler) isn't super strict by default. How > hard is it anyway to put -Wall in your CFLAGS??
The trouble being -Wall doesn't even enable everything... > I definitely think it's better to let people enable especially strict > warnings if/when they see the need; besides, static checks aren't by any > stretch perfect, they can merely indicate possible code improvements. > Consider also that Python being a dynamic language makes it notoriously > difficult to get a tool like pylint right, meaning that there will be a > certain amount of false positives, which result in extra work for the > programmer and uglier code (pylint directives in comments). It's better for > pylint not to be overly ambitious, considering it's a means to an end, not > an end in itself (to some of us anyway). > > Arve The fact that it is horribly difficult in python to keep track of things just makes it all the more important that the tool is indeed as fascist as it can... I prefer false positives that I can think about than false negatives that will let me do horrors... -- Eric Deplagne
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Python-Projects mailing list [email protected] http://lists.logilab.org/mailman/listinfo/python-projects
