From: Jason Voegele <jason@...>
Date: 2002-09-30T02:36:15+09:00
Subject: Re: thoughts on typelessness

Dossy wrote:

>Sounds like static typing is an excuse not to always aim for as close to
>100% test coverage as possible.
>
>Is this a wise approach?  Is there ever a time that the program doesn't
>benefit from having test coverage closer to 100%?
>
To characterize the abundant, thorough, and indeed necessary research 
and development that went into static typing and has pervaded computing 
science over the last several decades as merely "an excuse" is an 
extreme mischaracterization.  While I enjoy the benefits and flexibility 
brought by dynamically typed languages such as Smalltalk and Ruby, there 
were and are very good reasons for the introduction and continued use of 
static typing.

-- 
Jason Voegele
"We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us."
    -- Gene Wolfe, The Book of the New Sun