🚀 go-pugleaf

According to rick@cua.cary.ibm.com.UUCP (Rick DeNatale):
>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 ...

Please note!  The C++ type system does, in fact, prevent such type
errors -- UNLESS the programmer lies to the compiler about the type of
an object.  Such lies are entirely the programmers fault, and do not
reflect badly on the language.

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

And I, in turn, have never seen an automobile in which it is not
necessary to take off the seatbelt occasionally, even when driving.
That doesn't mean that seatbelts are counterproductive.

We've all heard the stories of people who drowned in their submerged
cars because they couldn't unfasten their seatbelts.  But such
anecdotes leave unmentioned the thousands of lives that are lost in
mundane accidents, lives that could have been saved if only seatbelts
were used.  Arguments against static typing are often based on similar
anecdotal evidence; such arguments are similarly bogus.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT     <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
   "All this is conjecture of course, since I *only* post in the nude.
    Nothing comes between me and my t.b.  Nothing."   -- Bill Coderre