Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven.umd.edu!socrates.umd.edu!socrates!rockwell
From: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Run-time Type Errors in Smalltalk (was Re: blip (was...))
Message-ID: <ROCKWELL.91May5192617@socrates.umd.edu>
Date: 6 May 91 00:26:17 GMT
References: <2367@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> <1130014@gore.com>
Sender: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell)
Organization: Traveller
Lines: 13
In-Reply-To: jacob@gore.com's message of 5 May 91 15: 01:52 GMT

Chuck Peterson:
   Has a cost of additional error and maintenance of dynamically vs.
   statically typed programming really been proven?

Jacob Gore:
   I've spent many hours seeking a bug that a compiler for a strongly
   typed language would have caught.  Proof enough for me.

static typing tends to mean compile time type parameterization
dynamic typing tends to mean run time time type parameterization
strong typing tends to mean sanity checks at the time of function closure

Raul Rockwell