> "frequently cited claim by proponents of dynamically typed programming languages that static typing was not needed for detecting bugs in programs"
Who says that? There's trade offs, multitudes, in choosing paradigm / language. It's never so black and white (except for academics, and twits who like to argue more than code)
I did not read paper, don't have time for 60 pages of pointlessness.
> "There's trade offs, multitudes, in choosing paradigm / language. It's never so black and white"
Sometimes, it is. Most people don't use COBOL anymore, with reason; better languages came along. Programming is still a new field in the scheme of things. It would be strange if our languages were perfectly optimized, with no room for improvement without offsetting costs.
> "twits who like to argue more than code"
Some of us like to do both :) But go program; we won't stop you...
I agree there are generally trade offs, that's essentially the results of my "60 pages of pointlessness" paper. If you did have time to read the paper you would notice a reference to this book http://my.safaribooksonline.com/book/software-engineering-an... that is an agument for unit testing instead of static typing. I think we need to use the scientific method in computer science and not just base our ideas of intuition, belief or absolutes like "It's never so black and white".
Who says that? There's trade offs, multitudes, in choosing paradigm / language. It's never so black and white (except for academics, and twits who like to argue more than code)
I did not read paper, don't have time for 60 pages of pointlessness.