Strong Typing vs Strong Testing
4th May 2003
In Strong Typing vs. Strong Testing, Bruce Eckel reconsiders the old idea that languages without strong typing can’t be relied on to create large programs:
This became a puzzle to me: if strong static type checking is so important, why are people able to build big, complex Python programs (with much shorter time and effort than the strong static counterparts) without the disaster that I was so sure would ensue?
His conclusion is that type checking by the compiler does not garauntee the correctness of a program in the first place; it’s just another test. Comprehensive unit testing can more than compensate for the lack of type checking in languages such as Python, especially since the huge productivity bonus provided by Python allows more tests to be written starting at an earlier stage in development.
Incidentally, Bruce recently added an RSS feed.
More recent articles
- Reverse engineering some updates to Claude - 31st July 2025
- Trying out Qwen3 Coder Flash using LM Studio and Open WebUI and LLM - 31st July 2025
- My 2.5 year old laptop can write Space Invaders in JavaScript now, using GLM-4.5 Air and MLX - 29th July 2025