🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991May17.051840.26916@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> quale@saavik.cs.wisc.edu (Douglas E. Quale) writes:
>In article <1991May17.011209.29486@tkou02.enet.dec.com> diamond@jit533.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond) writes:
>>In article <1991May16.153308.4054@spool.cs.wisc.edu> quale@picard.cs.wisc.edu (Douglas E. Quale) writes:
>>>Dynamically typed languages are safer than primitive statically typed
>>>languages such as C.
>>
>>No.  Dynamically typed languages are safer than C.  Statically typed
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I believe that's what I said.

It isn't.  Your previous statement confused statically typed languages
with C.  Your example only proved that dynamically typed languages are
safer than one particular collection of C programs.  You didn't even
prove that dynamically typed languages are safer than C in general,
but I made this generalization intuitively.

Now, statically typed languages are also safer than C.  Your same
example (the X-window system), though it does not prove this statement,
remains a valid example.

You play word games in order to create the assertion that dynamically
typed languages are safer than statically typed languages.  If you have
a shred of evidence to support this assertion, it is better to show
your evidence than to play word games.
--
Norman Diamond       diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.
Permission is granted to feel this signature, but not to look at it.