Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!xlned.com!feeder5.xlned.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed2.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.000 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'from:addr:yahoo.co.uk': 0.04; 'static': 0.04; 'subject:Python': 0.06; 'compiler': 0.07; 'tests.': 0.07; 'dan': 0.09; 'lawrence': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'sentence': 0.09; 'subject:Why': 0.09; 'type,': 0.09; 'url:activestate': 0.09; 'python': 0.11; 'language.': 0.14; 'awesome.': 0.16; 'eclipse': 0.16; 'imo,': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'recipe': 0.16; 'reliability.': 0.16; 'roy': 0.16; 'saying.': 0.16; 'language': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; "hasn't": 0.19; 'unlike': 0.19; 'seems': 0.21; '>>>': 0.22; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'errors.': 0.24; 'subject:like': 0.24; "haven't": 0.24; 'compiled': 0.26; 'second': 0.26; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.27; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'idea': 0.28; 'testing': 0.29; 'url:code': 0.29; 'dec': 0.30; 'went': 0.31; 'code': 0.31; 'checked': 0.32; 'fri,': 0.33; 'used,': 0.33; 'but': 0.35; 'add': 0.35; 'c++': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'detail': 0.37; 'integration': 0.37; 'checks': 0.38; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'anything': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'received:org': 0.40; 'our': 0.64; 'believe': 0.68; '20,': 0.68; 'smith': 0.68; 'analysis': 0.75; 'quality.': 0.84; '2013': 0.98 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Mark Lawrence Subject: Re: Why Python is like C++ Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 08:42:00 +0000 References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host-78-147-30-118.as13285.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 31 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1387615343 news.xs4all.nl 2894 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:52328 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:62479 On 21/12/2013 08:18, Dan Stromberg wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: >> On 20/12/2013 14:19, Roy Smith wrote: >>> >>> http://xkcd.com/1306/ >>> >> >> I believe that to be a very superficial like. They're unlike in that once >> C++ people have compiled their code they can head down to the pub, but >> Python people have to stay at work testing because the compiler hasn't >> caught all potential errors. > > Python should be used with static analysis (EG pylint), IMO, for > reliability. Python should also be used, IMO, with a good set of > automated unit, integration and system tests. > I use the Pydev plugin for Eclipse and have Pylint turned on so that it automatically checks my code as I type, just awesome. To me your second sentence above goes without saying. And add in anything that can help improve quality. This recipe http://code.activestate.com/recipes/578793-more-strict-unittests-using-a-validator/ only went up yesterday, haven't checked it out in detail but the idea seems impressive. -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence