"Strong typing vs. strong testing"

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

RG <rNOSPAMon at flownet.com> writes:

> One might hypothesize that the best of both worlds would be a dynamic 
> language with a static analyzer layered on top.  Such a thing does not 
> exist.  It makes an instructive exercise to try to figure out why.  (For 
> the record, I don't know the answer, but I've learned a lot through the 
> process of pondering this conundrum.)

There are static analysis tools for Common Lisp:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/ai-repository/ai/lang/lisp/code/tools/lint/0.html

or lisp in general.  For example PHENARETE is in the category of static
analysis tools.

One could regret that they're not more developed, but I guess this only
proves the success of using dynamic programming languages: if there were
a real need for these tools, along with a good ROI, they would be more
developed.  In the meantime, several test frameworks are developed.


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/