null [re: spec#]

[foobar]

steveh Wrote:

> bearophile Wrote:
> 
> > Simen kjaeraas:
> > 
> > > Context-sensitive constructor disabling is a theoretical possibility, but
> > > seems to me to conflict with D's other goals.
> > 
> > It's time to update those goals.
> 
> I studied the situation further. Now I've decided to leave D. I tried to cope with all overly complex type system quirks, but have had enough of it now. These two months with D truly opened my eyes. It means I won't touch C++ or Java either.
> 
> My next goal is to use an untyped (less types = better) language which concentrates on cool syntax. Intensive test suites guarantee safety and quality. An extreme version of TDD.
> 
> I'm building an IDE (Eclipse) extension [in Java :( ] for automatically injecting basic tests to typical programs. This way the tests only slow down the debug build. The production version runs at maximum speed.
> 
> Another solution is exploratory testing. I test stuff interactively using a REPL. These reports and guidelines can be written down in .doc word documents. I learnt this idea from Paul Graham and his new language.

Your conclusion that less types = better is patently incorrect. 
While I like Ruby and test driven development that doesn't obviate the need for a strong type system. 
tests can only prove that whatever invalid inputs you test for are accounted for. Tests CANNOT prove the correctness of your system for all inputs.
Frankly, I wouldn't use software you wrote with this attitude for a facebook app let alone any system with a smidgen of reliability requirements.