🚀 go-pugleaf

Brian Boutel writes:

>The claim that testing catches all errors is laughable. Errors show
>up in production code every day. Testing, as we tell first year
>students, does not demonstrate the absence of errors, only their
>presence.

By the same token, the claim that static typing catches all errors is
invalid.  And if a language _requires_ a significant amount of
programmer time to be spent micro-managing static type declarations,
it introduces the possibility for more errors -- errors which may not
be caught in testing.

>So what can be said about all the errors in the quoted C++ project
>that were not caught by testing and are still in the production code?
> 
>I'll tell you. They are not type errors.

No, they were not _static_ type errors.  You don't know if they'd be
caught by run-time type checking.

Raul Rockwell