From: "W. Kent Starr" <elderburn@...>
Date: 2001-03-23T15:50:28+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:13118] Re: Static versus dynamic typing [long]

On Friday 23 March 2001 00:38, Conrad Schneiker wrote:
> FYI--This topic has come up a number of times in the past, and it usually
> seems that (most of) the strongest pro-dynamic arguments lean toward the
> "based on my (considerable) experience" varity, which nevertheless seem
> less than satisfying (in terms of understandying why) for many people. So
> I thought some people might find these remarks interesting.
>
> Subject: Re: Who's minister of propaganda this week?
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:37:18 +0100
> From: "Alex Martelli"
> Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
>
> Alex Martelli wrote:
> > "Michael Chermside" <mcherm_python@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:mailman.984619039.7856.python-list@python.org...
> >
> > > Alex Martelli wrote:
> > >          ... [snip]...
> > >
> > >   > So, all the compile-time checking is buying is catching (a small
> > >   > subset of) the errors that would be caught in testing anyway, a
> > >   > little bit earlier (thus, a little bit cheaper) -- it's never the
> > >   > case that one has to write a test which would not be needed at
> > >   > all if type-checking was static, since "the object has the right
> > >   > type" is a small subcase of "the object _behaves_ per the specs".

Indeed, to my imbecilic little mind this actually kind of "says it all".

And if the least of the least can grasp this thought and grok it, why not the 
rest of the world?

Resolution of code via compiler has it merits, but perhaps it is too often 
used as a crutch by those who do not see the cracks in the wood and then, as 
Dave is so fond of saying, "There be dragons!" 

Or windows, if you prefer. :-)

Regards,

Kent Starr
elderburn@mindspring.com