"Strong typing vs. strong testing"

[John Nagle]

On 9/27/2010 10:46 AM, namekuseijin wrote:
> On 27 set, 05:46, TheFlyingDutchman<zzbba... at aol.com>  wrote:
>> On Sep 27, 12:58 am, p... at informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
>> wrote:
>>> RG<rNOSPA... at flownet.com>  writes:
>>>> In article
>>>> <7df0eb06-9be1-4c9c-8057-e9fdb7f0b... at q16g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>   TheFlyingDutchman<zzbba... at aol.com>  wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sep 22, 10:26 pm, "Scott L. Burson"<Sc... at ergy.com>  wrote:
>>>>>> This might have been mentioned here before, but I just came across it: a
>>>>>> 2003 essay by Bruce Eckel on how reliable systems can get built in
>>>>>> dynamically-typed languages.  It echoes things we've all said here, but
>>>>>> I think it's interesting because it describes a conversion experience:
>>>>>> Eckel started out in the strong-typing camp and was won over.
>>
>>>>>>     https://docs.google.com/View?id=dcsvntt2_25wpjvbbhk
>>

    The trouble with that essay is that he's comparing with C++.
C++ stands alone as offering hiding without memory safety.
No language did that before C++, and no language has done it
since.

    The basic problem with C++ is that it take's C's rather lame
concept of "array=pointer" and wallpapers over it with
objects.  This never quite works.  Raw pointers keep seeping
out.  The mold always comes through the wallpaper.

    There have been better strongly typed languages.  Modula III
was quite good, but it was from DEC's R&D operation, which was
closed down when Compaq bought DEC.

				John Nagle