Re: Lua for large apps (was: Lua for GUI toolkit wrapping?)

[Jacques Chester <jacques@...>]

On 29/09/2009, at 5:51 AM, Eike Decker wrote:
> I don't agree on that - like other posters on this topic, I believe
> that static type checking is catching only the easy bugs. If I write a
> piece of code (any language) I have to test if it works, either
> manually or automatically with a test. And my experience is that most
> typos are caught in that process anyway.

It depends a lot on what we're talking about in terms of
'static typing'. If we're talking about C++ and Java, for
example, then it only lends so much. If, on the other hand,
we're talking about later schemes, then it gives you an
awful lot of help. I've done a little F# this year (it's an
ocaml spinoff) and I was surprised at how much the compiler
could deduce from my definitions. It spotted potential errors
I'd never have thought of -- and wouldn't have tested for.

But I don't think testing is mutually exclusive with static
typing. There are things that are easier to express as tests
than types and vice versa.

As for Lua, it's a marvellous language and dynamic typing is
part of its DNA. But this fact detracts nothing from statically
typed languages IMO. They're just different.

/2c

Cheers,

JC.