Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!mcnc!nowhere!rick From: rick@cua.cary.ibm.com (Rick DeNatale) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: blip [Re: Dynamic typing -- To Have and Have Not ...] Message-ID: <1991Mar27.175732.431@cua.cary.ibm.com> Date: 27 Mar 91 17:57:32 GMT References: <14160@life.ai.mit.edu> <1991Mar25.201620.5839@cua.cary.ibm.com> Reply-To: rick@cua.cary.ibm.com.UUCP (Rick DeNatale) Organization: cua Lines: 21 In article jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) writes: >>I'm actually a little bit surprised that people put so much faith in compile >>time type checking systems that they are willing to accept an implementation >>that allows type errors that escape the compiler to cause wild branches and >>other unsavory acts, and then demand that such stuff is required for >>"industrial strength". > >Who are these people? I'D certainly never accept such an implementation. >I demand strong compile time checking AND a validated compiler. But then. >that's why I prefer to work in Ada. > >>I haven't seen a strong typing system yet that doesn't require you to >>(hopefully carefully) circumvent it at times, > >Agreed. But the point is that in a properly designed language you have >to go out of your way (by design) to effect such circumvention. > So even with a validated compiler, you still need validated programmers, or you have to limit what you can do. Rick Denatale ** Of course my opinion is my own, who else would have it!