Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

chromatic (983)

chromatic
  (email not shown publicly)
http://wgz.org/chromatic/

Blog Information [technorati.com] Profile for chr0matic [technorati.com]

Journal of chromatic (983)

Sunday December 30, 2007
09:44 PM

Static, Manifest, Evadable, ... But Valuable?

[ #35248 ]

Strong-typing is a much better way to state intent then relying on the descriptiveness of a property name. Granted, it is possible that this truth is false, but 99% of the time it won't be false, and even then, proper use of unit testing can get us to 100%.

Dan Allen, Generics are the best we've ever had

It is possible that a property name can be truly descriptive (and in maintainable code 99% of the time it won't be), and proper use of unit testing can get us to 100%.

Faint praise for busywork (and come on, anyone who uses the phrase "strong typing" in all seriousness as if it actually meant something other than "You're going to wear out your keyboard and wrists soon!" inspires little confidence) doesn't impress me much. Type erasure less so.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Will Perl 6 let the programmer decide when to use strong typing? I can see where it is sometimes useful, but sometimes a pain.
    • Perl 6 allows optional typing. If you want to put types in your function and method signatures, you can. This may even be a good idea in some cases.

      The compiler (and runtime when appropriate) will check types for you.