From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...>
Date: 2006-10-16T13:16:15+09:00
Subject: Re: Lisp dinamism vs ML safety

atbusbook@aol.com wrote:
> Jeremy Tregunna wrote:
>> On 06-10-15, at 23:45, atbusbook@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> I am More of a Ruby guy but i programed in CL and Scheme and SML.
>>> dynamic typeing allows for less code and faaster develipment. static
>>> typeings safty benifits are pointless becaus the #  of bugs is
>>> preporial to the lines_of_code. a line of code not needed is a correct
>>> line of code!!!!! and how often do you get type errors
>> A line of code not needed is a bug; it complicates maintenance and
>> adds unnecessary complexity.
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Tregunna
>> jtregunna@blurgle.ca
> what i ment was a line of code not nesasary to write and not writen is
> a correct line of code sorry for the ambiguity

Interesting conversation -- but where might I find the beginning of it?

I always liked Dijkstra's comment about counting lines of code *spent*
rather than lines of code *produced*. :)
> 
>