| > How, exactly, is it "fully understood by its creators"? How do you know that it's "thoroughly tested"? Here's what I said: "If the software is fully understood by its creators, and if it has been thoroughly tested, there's no reason to doubt its reliability." Read it again. Note the word "if" repeated twice. > On top of which, you've deployed an illogical assertion: that because things anecdotally CAN go wrong with what you presume was a type-safe language, the failure rate is EQUIVALENT to a non-typesafe language. As is often the case in Internet debates, you have invented a position I have never taken to argue with (a "straw man"). I don't have to defend a position I've never taken. > That doesn't make any sense. So? It's your opinion, not mine. You defend it. > That's not an argument against strong typing, that's an argument against your understanding of type systems. "My understanding?" Was I present on the Navy capital ship that lost its way after a zero was entered into a strongly typed software system? Did I write the code? No to both. I understand typed systems perfectly well, and they're sometimes helpful in avoiding problems. But the reliability difference between typed and untyped schemes is overrated. |