Re: Why I don't believe in static typing

Alain Picard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What I also find interesting about this episode is, at
> the meta level, that you got the responses I expected
> right away:
> * the programmers were incompetent (shoot the messenger)
> * That's not a typing issue, it's a concurrency issue (head in the sand).
> * refusal to learn from the experience (from your managers/team).

Excuse me, so you're saying that if A claims he had an accident
on his way to work because you saw a black cat passing from left
to right, and if B points out that the black cat has nothing to
do with it, then B is automatically wrong? Come on.

> I would almost go so far as to say that KNOWING you're going
> to get errors at runtime is BETTER, because it leads to safer/more
> robust designs.  

Yes, it is. With a static type system, you not even know that you're
going to get errors at runtime, you have a good idea about *what*a
kinds of errors you're going to get, and what kinds of errors
never won't happen.

- Dirk