[tines]

In my opinion, you've got the order wrong: types are the abstraction, and untyped-ness is the concrete implementation (just look at almost all assembly languages).

> Do you want to invest your time worrying about types or actually programming?

Another order reversal: type systems allow you to focus on programming, instead of hunting around for bugs because somebody 50 levels up the call stack passed you a value that doesn't support the interface it needs to support.

This is an endless debate of course, just wanted to throw in a typed pl fan's opinion in the mix.

[cndkxjsnf]

>Another order reversal: type systems allow you to focus on programming, instead of hunting around for bugs

Except that is false. Bug prevalence is empirically orthogonal to type system.

See Xmonad

[tines]

But this is in deployment software, i.e. I interpret your assertion as meaning "bug prevalence in software after it has been debugged is the same regardless of type system." My argument is that, at least for me, code becomes bug-free faster with static types than with dynamic, not that it ends up more bug-free in the end.

[dancek]

Are you saying that Xmonad is buggy? I never realized that, but I'm quite new to it. I'd think I've seen other window managers crash with similar amount of use, though.

Or are you saying that Xmonad is not buggy? But then I don't understand how it relates to empirical orthogonality at all.

[taeric]

Window managers crash often? I can't think of the last time I saw one do so.