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
- Conceptual integrity and counting lines of code - 19th August 2026
- Qwen 3.8 27B is excellent, but it defaults to wildly overthinking things - 16th August 2026
- Now we have a timeline of the OpenAI accidental attack against Hugging Face - 7th August 2026