Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #51750
| From | Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Subject | Re: Does Python 'enable' poke and hope programming? |
| Date | 2013-08-01 18:08 +0000 |
| Organization | Norwich University |
| Message-ID | <b5vmgnFa9nkU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <6b1769f8-222b-4953-99c8-a1d73cec3d60@googlegroups.com> |
On 2013-08-01, CM <cmpython@gmail.com> wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_by_permutation > > It seems that if I can make a change to the code and then > immediately test it by running the Python interpreter and > finding out, in a few seconds, if it worked, I am going to be > *much* more likely to use this trial-and-error approach than if > I had to use a compiled language, since compiling takes so > long. E.g. "Oh, that doesn't work? Maybe if I add this...no. > OK, what about if I increment that? No...OK, wait, maybe > this...AH! That worked." (obviously it is not quite that > uninformed all the time). > > Instead, with a compiled language, because of the pain of > having to wait for the newest version to compile, one would be > encouraged to get the mechanism of how something works *clear* > and robustly represented in one's mind (or on scrap paper/notes > document) prior to testing through compiling and running. With a big project running all tests for a Python program could be just as time consuming. If I were using a compiler for my programs compiling would still be virtually instantaneous. > I'm sick of this in my own work, and want to avoid this trap as > much as I can from now on. When I "know", for example. that it's an off-by-one error, I'm pretty guilty of just making the change and re-running the test. I think it's cool! If my test sucks, then I wasted my time, of course. As I said, I disagree that the speed of using an interpreter is the main issue. Changing certain things, even big things, in a Python program is often much easier than changing something in , say, a C program, due to Duck-Typing and dynamic typing. So experimentation is easier thanks to more maleable code. -- Neil Cerutti
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Does Python 'enable' poke and hope programming? CM <cmpython@gmail.com> - 2013-08-01 10:57 -0700
Re: Does Python 'enable' poke and hope programming? Neil Cerutti <neilc@norwich.edu> - 2013-08-01 18:08 +0000
Re: Does Python 'enable' poke and hope programming? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-08-01 19:30 +0100
Re: Does Python 'enable' poke and hope programming? Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-08-01 19:58 +0000
Re: Does Python 'enable' poke and hope programming? Sam Whitehead <demon.exh@gmail.com> - 2013-08-01 17:52 -0700
Re: Does Python 'enable' poke and hope programming? Vito De Tullio <vito.detullio@gmail.com> - 2013-08-02 05:34 +0200
Re: Does Python 'enable' poke and hope programming? Wayne Werner <wayne@waynewerner.com> - 2013-08-03 07:49 -0500
Re: Does Python 'enable' poke and hope programming? CM <cmpython@gmail.com> - 2013-08-03 10:30 -0700
Re: Does Python 'enable' poke and hope programming? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-08-03 18:39 +0100
Re: Does Python 'enable' poke and hope programming? Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-08-03 11:31 -0700
csiph-web