Re: Why I don't believe in static typing

Erann Gat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, I am saying that I don't believe in static typing because I have met
> very smart people who ended up doing very stupid things as a result (I
> believe) of using static typing systems.

This does not match my experience at all. And, as you say, 
the important point is:

> The story was not meant to be a warning against using static typing,
> merely against relying on it. 

If there are indeed any people who are so stupid to think that because
they have static typing, their programs will be automatically
completely bug free, then it should be easy to explain to them
that no possible static type system in the world can achieve this.

> I believe that languages that enforce static typing (as opposed to
> offering it as an optional tool) tend to drive people towards
> relying on it.

I still cannot believe this.

> The only objective evidence I can offer is how long it took
> to find the bug after it manifested itself.  

That's somewhat typical for race conditions. If you don't invest
effort up front to combat them, they are really hard to catch.

> You'd have to believe that the entire team was stupid.

I'd probably believe that somebody in the team was sloppy. Race condition
bugs do happen, even to smart people. 

> You can also calibrate my assessment by asking anyone who knows me if I am
> the least bit shy about levying a charge of stupidity if I think it is
> warranted.

I certainly think that any claim that your usual Java, C++, Haskell or
OCaml type system guards against race conditions is so completely stupid
that I cannot even imagine someone could make it.

And concluding that "one does not believe in static typing" based on
that evidence isn't really smart IMHO, either. (Sorry, but I am also
not shy in this respect).

- Dirk