[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Experience with Large Applications in Lua?
- From: "Steve Donovan" <sjdonova@...>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 10:50:21 +0200
>>> firstname.lastname@example.org 07/07/04 08:50AM >>>
>However, I found that with the increasing of the amount of code, one
>discovers why most languages have things like type checking or
An interesting perspective from Robert C. Martin:
In a nutshell: we need strong testing, not strong typing.
Bruce Eckel seems to have come to that conclusion:
>You can also put documentation in the descriptor, making it easier
>the user of a library to discover its interface.
Now that's a cool idea. Every function carries its own documentation.
>All the checks of course can be done at run-time only, not at compile
>time, so a good unit testing system with coverage would be needed
Absolutely. It's true that dynamically typed languages are strongly
but a Pascal person would miss the ability to say that an integer was
only valid for 1 to 10, or that an array was not valid outside a
But surely standard Lua tricks could be used to enforce this kind
of more precise run-time typing?
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.