On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:56 PM, William H. Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the problem with adding static typing rules is one of diminishing > returns. Abstractly speaking, imagine that a body of rules that can be > described in one page of text eliminates 50% of common errors. Ten more > pages of rules eliminate the next 25% of common errors. How many pages of > rules would it take to get to 90%? Would you choose to use a language that > eliminates 99.9% of errors if its static typing mechanisms took 500 pages to > describe?
A good testing framework can eliminate 90%+ of programming errors, and only takes a couple dozen pages of API docs to describe. Plus, you don't have to use a compiler if you are writing in an interpreted language ;) -- Chad --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
