From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id AAA17302; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:07:33 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA17122 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:07:32 +0100 (MET) Received: from cmailm4.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailm4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.211]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id hAIN7V109764 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:07:32 +0100 (MET) Received: from modem-738.beedrill.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.34.226]) by cmailm4.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1AMEwU-0006Z0-T9 for caml-list@inria.fr; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:07:31 +0000 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:07:23 +0000 (GMT) From: John J Lee X-X-Sender: john@alice To: Caml Mailing List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] GC and file descriptors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 python:01 python:01 run-time:01 run-time:01 powerfull:01 compile-time:01 circumvent:01 descriptors:01 nov:01 checking:01 checking:01 compile:02 ruby:02 ruby:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Brian Hurt wrote: [...] > Have there been any large projects (multiple developers, tens to hundreds > of thousands of lines of code) in Python or Ruby? Yes. Though I think it's a bad idea to measure in lines of code, given that the reported discrepancy of (lines of code per function point) is so large between languages like C++ and Java on the one hand, and Python or Ruby on the other. > One problem I have is that programming is going away from strict compile > time type checking to run-time type checking. The problem with run-time > type checking is that it only catches errors in the field. Static type > checking is the most powerfull tool we've come up with to ensure > correctness in programs. And no, unit tests are not a replacement for > strict compile-time type checking. Well, a sincere "thanks" for going through the whole loop of that argument without the need for getting anyone else involved ;-) (Except to add "NOT!" of course ;-) > The problem is that the only type checking people are aware of is > Pascal/Algol-68 type systems. Which require you to be able to circumvent. [...] Of course. John ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners