From: atbusbook@...
Date: 2006-10-16T13:20:27+09:00
Subject: Re: Lisp dinamism vs ML safety


M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> 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*. :)
> > 
> >

comp.lang.lisp