[OT] - was Re: Task Scheduling

Michael L Torrie torriem at chem.byu.edu
Wed Jan 25 16:13:30 MST 2006

On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 15:23 -0700, Bryan Sant wrote:
>  I hardly type at all, the IDE does all the work for me.

If that much busy-work is required to do tasks, then lots of code
generation, although a convenience, represents a deficiency in the
language, in my opinion.

Now most languages probably do though.

> So long as it is small enough for a single person or small group to
> maintain.  For larger projects, type-safety and mature frameworks save
> time and reduce errors.  The same effect *could* be achieved by
> asserting the correctness of parameters by a dynamic language, but now
> you've just impacted run-time performance and your productivity just
> went out the window.

I think Smalltalk effectively proved that a dynamic weak types can be
just as safe, if not safer, than strong static types.  So this argument
is really fallacious.  As for performance, well, static typing does have
the edge.

> Well there you have it.  The undeniable proof we've all been waiting for :-).

I agree.  When I program in Java and consume large amounts of Ibuprofen
I also have less headaches.


More information about the PLUG mailing list