Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:7125 comp.object:2931 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pdn!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.object Subject: Re: Static typing: the OOP seatbelt Message-ID: <27F11D7B.6309@tct.uucp> Date: 27 Mar 91 22:32:27 GMT References: <22032@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <14160@life.ai.mit.edu> <1991Mar25.201620.5839@cua.cary.ibm.com> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 28 According to rick@cua.cary.ibm.com.UUCP (Rick DeNatale): >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 ... Please note! The C++ type system does, in fact, prevent such type errors -- UNLESS the programmer lies to the compiler about the type of an object. Such lies are entirely the programmers fault, and do not reflect badly on the language. >I haven't seen a strong typing system yet that doesn't require you to >(hopefully carefully) circumvent it at times ... And I, in turn, have never seen an automobile in which it is not necessary to take off the seatbelt occasionally, even when driving. That doesn't mean that seatbelts are counterproductive. We've all heard the stories of people who drowned in their submerged cars because they couldn't unfasten their seatbelts. But such anecdotes leave unmentioned the thousands of lives that are lost in mundane accidents, lives that could have been saved if only seatbelts were used. Arguments against static typing are often based on similar anecdotal evidence; such arguments are similarly bogus. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT , "All this is conjecture of course, since I *only* post in the nude. Nothing comes between me and my t.b. Nothing." -- Bill Coderre