🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <jls.670045356@rutabaga> jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:
>>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.
>
So even with a validated compiler, you still need validated programmers,	or you have to limit what you can do. 

Rick Denatale
** Of course my opinion is my own, who else would have it!