Re: Is strong typing worth the cost?

[Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com>]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> 
> > > It can
> > > even be something that you KNOW will fail--in
> > > which case, why waste time running the test?
> >
> > Because you *don't* know it will fail. And perhaps adding that
> > declaration made some *other* test fail. So now you know it was the very
> 
> If it's a stub, you _do_ know it will fail.

Only if you write the stub. See, in Smalltalk, everything's an object.
So maybe the parent class already takes care of this.

Or, in another case, maybe you're writing code to handle (say)
misformatted records, and there aren't any misformatted records in your
data.

You can check the XP sites for other real live examples of where folks
thought the test would fail and it didn't.

Anyway, this is the XP philosophy. I can't say it's right. I'm just
saying that strong typing makes it harder to do it.

> And if you aren't sure whether a stub will
> break something it doesn't call, you REALLY
> chose the wrong language.

Again, OO. If you implement something broken that overrides something
working, you're going to break something, yes?
 
> I don't base my opinion on it.  I just couldn't help
> but notice the obvious marketing technique in the very
> statement that puts down marketing.

I think what they were trying to say is that they're giving you real
experience rather than simply saying "here's something that ought to
work." That is, if I remember right the paper you're talking about.

-- 
Darren New 
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
   The 90/10 rule of toothpaste: the last 10% of 
         the tube lasts as long as the first 90%.