{"id":478,"date":"2003-08-21T21:35:35","date_gmt":"2003-08-22T01:35:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wordpress.cephas.net\/?p=478"},"modified":"2003-08-21T21:35:35","modified_gmt":"2003-08-22T01:35:35","slug":"test-versus-type","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cephas.net\/blog\/2003\/08\/21\/test-versus-type\/","title":{"rendered":"Test versus Type"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.osteele.com\/\">Oliver Steele<\/a>, who is the Chief Software Architect at <a href=\"http:\/\/www.laszlosystems.com\/\">Laszlo Systems<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.osteele.com\/archives\/2003\/08\/test_versus_type.html\">wrote<\/a> a short essay about the cost and time difference between &#8220;Explicity-Typed Languages&#8221; and &#8220;Implicitly-Typed Languages&#8221;.  <\/p>\n<p>A couple people pointed out in the comments that you gain back some of the time lost by developing types &amp; tests in an Explicitly Typed Language when refactoring because your IDE can help you where it can&#8217;t in an Implicitly Typed Language.  In my humble opinion, this (refactoring) is an example of one of the reasons why J2EE developers don&#8217;t look very long at ColdFusion. Moving to ColdFusion requires them to think procedurally rather than in objects (although CFC&#8217;s now provide pseudo OO behavior). Testing becomes stickier (although <a href=\"http:\/\/www.macromedia.com\/software\/drk\/productinfo\/product_overview\/volume3\/\">DRK 3<\/a> includes the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.macromedia.com\/software\/drk\/productinfo\/product_overview\/volume3\/coldfusionmx.html#cfunit\">CFunit component<\/a> framework for testing ColdFusion components).  Of course, Oliver&#8217;s article is also a great reason TO use a tool like ColdFusion.  Instead of spending time writing recursively types,tests, &amp; code, you can code\/test\/code\/test.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Oliver Steele, who is the Chief Software Architect at Laszlo Systems, wrote a short essay about the cost and time difference between &#8220;Explicity-Typed Languages&#8221; and &#8220;Implicitly-Typed Languages&#8221;. A couple people pointed out in the comments that you gain back some of the time lost by developing types &amp; tests in an Explicitly Typed Language when &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/cephas.net\/blog\/2003\/08\/21\/test-versus-type\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Test versus Type<\/span> <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[2],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cephas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/478"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cephas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cephas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cephas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cephas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=478"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cephas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/478\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cephas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=478"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cephas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=478"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cephas.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=478"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}