Carmack about static analysis

[Brad Anderson]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Walter Bright
<newshound2 at digitalmars.com>wrote:

> On 2/10/2012 3:10 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>
>> Typeless is great when sketching some piece of code, but you'll way more
>> problem
>> at the end.
>>
>
> I've heard people say that typeless is just as good, because you load them
> up with unit tests that verify the types. To me, this doesn't seem like any
> advantage. I'd rather have the language automatically check things for me,
> rather than worrying about having complete unit test coverage, let alone
> the bother of writing them.
>

I actually read an article recently from someone who had written large
applications in dynamic languages and had come to the conclusion that the
productivity gains you have with the dynamic typing are pretty much lost to
the additional unit testing you must do to ensure everything works.  I've
always had an uneasy feeling when working in dynamic languages but chalked
it up to my own inexperience.

Regards,
Brad Anderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120210/7af05512/attachment.html>