On 27 Mar 2011 20:17, "Cédric Beust ♔" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Haskell doesn't have this issue, nor does Coq or Agda, all of them being far more Nannyish than Java is ways that actually have some proven benefit as to improving the quality of your programming > > > I think you just beat a new record in the area of unproven, unfalsifiable and frankly ludicrous claims. >
Which part is ludicrous? The claim that these languages are more restrictive than Java, or the claim that stronger typing improves quality. Checked exceptions don't count as stronger typing, they still don't force you to deal with them correctly as an alternative to the expected return, they occur in a shadow type system. Consider assembler at one end of a spectrum, and SQL towards the other (Java in the middle). Is it really unprovable that SQLs strong typing (even string length can form part of a type) and freedom from the halting problem don't force you to write safer code? > -- > Cédric > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
