🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4243.2805b94a@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> klimas@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
>	Some info that I picked up from a company doing a lot of big
>	project work with C++ (i.e. strong type checking language) was
>	that postmortems on their project revealed only 10% of their
>	errors were captured by strong type checking.
I think this depends on what you call "strongly typed."  Personally, I wouldn't
call any C derived language strongly typed, as long as (void *) exists.
If you want to see REAL strong typing, try, say Standard ML (Ok, ok, it's
a functional language so I shouldn't be mentioning it in this group.  :-)
I don't want to start the functional vs OOP flamefest.)   I'm just using this
as an example of a really strong type system: wherever it can, it automatically
infers the type of the expression, and won't compile anything that doesn't
typecheck.
The only experience with dynamically-typed systems I have are Lisp-based
systems, just today I crashed one with a type error.  It could be that
imperative/functional programs are more prone to type-errors that OO programs;
(note: this is a conjecture) does anyone have any real data on the subject ?


-- 
Drew Dean
Drew_Dean@rain.andrew.cmu.edu
[CMU provides my net connection; they don't necessarily agree with me.]