[le-manchester]

Not at all because programming languages like Ruby parameter names don't tell the full story:

if you have def find(name) what kind of type could be name? String "Steve"?? Symbol :Steve? Hash {:first => "Steve", :last => "Jobs"} ??

[aneisf]

That just means that 'name' is a poor name for the parameter. Have 'first_name, last_name' or 'full_name' or 'names,' for example.

In addition, I think it's a good practice to get into to try and validate parameters at the top of any method. If the values don't fit your use for them, raise an exception.

[paul-woolcock]

That strikes me as very Pythonic attitude. If you're going to fail, fail early. But, I know Python way better than Ruby, so it might very well be a Ruby thing too.

[aneisf]

I'm not sure if it's Pythonic as I've never written Python. It's a habit I carried over from the .NET world, actually.

[mgurlitz]

Wouldn't the Pythonic thing be to only fail after you've tried, instead of validating your parameters in advance?

[agentultra]

Yes. It's easier to beg for forgiveness than to look before you leap. You just use your parameters regardless of types and let the exceptions fly.

[DeepDuh]

Is that really Pythonic? Isn't that just general best practice in programming?