I come not to bury C++, but to praise it...

[Cameron Laird]

In article <donn-DF9867.09340714012004 at nntp3.u.washington.edu>,
Donn Cave  <donn at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <100aq779r2h2c9e at corp.supernews.com>,
> claird at lairds.com (Cameron Laird) wrote:
>
>> In article <bu3khe$dbm5v$1 at ID-46268.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> Derek <none at none.com> wrote:
>> 			.
>> 			.
>> 			.
>> reliability, I very much want to understand it.  Are you alluding
>> precisely to Python's dynamic typing, and observing that, as earlier
>> is better, C++'s compile-type checks beat Python's run-time checks?
>
>Your wording is precise enough that your question could have
>been better.  Note "compile type checks" vs. "run-time checks" -
>a difference not only in when, but what.  There's more to it
>than "earlier is better".
			.
			.
			.
Great!  *What* more?  When I look at Python and C++, I see the
former as having *stricter*, if more dynamic, typing, so I don't
understand what advantage C++ has in this one regard apart from
time-of-detection.

I apologize, by the way, for writing "compile-type" where I 
intended "compile-time".
-- 

Cameron Laird <claird at phaseit.net>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net