"Strong typing vs. strong testing"

[RG]

In article <slrnia9olp.2uc.usenet-nospam at guild.seebs.net>,
 Seebs <usenet-nospam at seebs.net> wrote:

> On 2010-09-30, RG <rNOSPAMon at flownet.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnia9fvi.307n.usenet-nospam at guild.seebs.net>,
> >  Seebs <usenet-nospam at seebs.net> wrote:
> >> And that's the magic of static typing:  It is not a false positive to
> >> warn you that "2L" is not of type int.
> 
> > We'll have to agree to disagree about that.
> 
> No, we won't.  It's the *definition* of static typing.  Static typing
> is there to give you some guarantees at the expense of not being able
> to express some things without special extra effort.  That's why it's
> static.

I don't want to quibble over terminology.  Whatever label you choose to 
put on it ("false positive", "not being able to express some things 
without special extra effort") I consider it a deficiency.  The costs 
are greater than the benefits.  Reasonable people can (and obviously do) 
disagree.

rg