¿ªÔÆÌåÓýHi Josue,
The articles are interesting and deserve due consideration. If I wanted to write an article showing that my approach was better than Kent¡¯s, I¡¯d just work until my code was clearly better, no matter how long it took, then claim that it was my approach that made it work. I¡¯m not saying the author did that: I¡¯m saying that it would be a good way to ¡°show¡± that one method works better. Certainly one does a different level and style of testing in a language with static types than in one without. Also one types a lot of redundant type-related information. The trade-off is not clear. Personally, I do not find that doing ¡°less typing¡± makes my code better, nor that it lets me go faster. I seem to be limited by my ability to think. I suppose if I were smarter than I am, my typing might slow me down, but I think for most of us, ¡°less typing¡± shouldn¡¯t be a high priority. Again, the articles are interesting and deserve due attention and thought. Then, readers should try the various approaches and find out what works best for them. Regards, Ron Jeffries I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way. ?-- Jessica Rabbit
|
