🚀 go-pugleaf

>I'm actually a little bit surprised that people put so much faith in compile
>time type checking systems that they are willing to accept an implementation
>that allows type errors that escape the compiler to cause wild branches and
>other unsavory acts, and then demand that such stuff is required for
>"industrial strength".

Who are these people? I'D certainly never accept such an implementation.
I demand strong compile time checking AND a validated compiler. But then.
that's why I prefer to work in Ada.

>I haven't seen a strong typing system yet that doesn't require you to 
>(hopefully carefully) circumvent it at times,

Agreed. But the point is that in a properly designed language you have
to go out of your way (by design) to effect such circumvention.

>or that is absolutely bullet
>proof even without circumvention (array bounds checking, overflows etc.).

Ada may not be completely bulletproof, but the examples you cite it
certainly detects and traps.
--
***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd
ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with
opinions like mine. 
              -- "When I want your opinion, I'll read it in your entrails."