Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!arizona.edu!arizona!gudeman
From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Dynamic typing (part 3)
Message-ID: <627@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 14 Mar 91 10:24:46 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 19

In article  <1991Mar13.143805.28242@tukki.jyu.fi> Markku Sakkinen writes:
]In article <613@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]>]In article <602@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]>]> Now people have actually come to believe, against all
]>]> evidence, that static typing is important for program reliability.
]
]Your original statement would seem to refer to people

Not if you were following the thread.  And frankly, not even if you
read the article carefully.  I was not speaking in opposition to
static type checking, I was specifically talking about this religious
belief that static type checking is necessary for program reliability.
I was the first person in this discussion to say that dynamic typing
is less efficient, and that efficiency was a good reason to use static
typing sometimes.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman