Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:7096 comp.object:2908 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!igor!rutabaga!jls From: jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.object Subject: Re: blip [Re: Dynamic typing -- To Have and Have Not ...] Message-ID: Date: 27 Mar 91 03:42:36 GMT References: <3523:Mar1803:21:0591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <22032@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <14160@life.ai.mit.edu> <1991Mar25.201620.5839@cua.cary.ibm.com> Sender: news@Rational.COM Followup-To: comp.lang.misc Lines: 26 >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. >or that is absolutely bullet >proof even without circumvention (array bounds checking, overflows etc.). Ada may not be completely bulletproof, but the examples you cite it certainly detects and traps. -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with opinions like mine. -- "When I want your opinion, I'll read it in your entrails."