On 27 Mar 2011 20:45, "Cédric Beust ♔" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 2011/3/27 Kevin Wright <[email protected]> >> >> >> 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. > > You didn't make any of these claims in the paragraph I quoted. > > You did say that all these languages have "proven benefit as to improving the quality of your programming". > > Calling this "ludicrous" is being nice. >
So: - Checked exceptions are stronger typing (I disagree) - Stronger typing does not probably improve the quality of your programming (I believe it does) - Yet you are in favour of checked exceptions, believing they do so improve quality (I believe they subvert static typing, and so reduce it) I'm sure I've missed some nuance here, because it's fairly obvious that you must have a coherent opinion, and there's a good chance that we actually agree on the vast majority of points raised. When you appear to be self-contradictory, it's almost certain that any response I give will be to my own misunderstanding of your viewpoint, instead of to your actual beliefs. > -- > 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.
