The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
Bartender: o'hyouSeaweed serve you, but your gunkan stay holstered. Don't be koi, my wife, shii-take my car to nori's house, but, none-the-less, welcome to mebaru guys. I'll wakame self over to your table to ask how kani help you.
And how debugging is going to ensure such conformance? QA testing can help, yes, but not debugging. Debugging is useless, as long as your code is guaranteed to do exactly what is specified. If program is working incorrectly from end users' perspective, then specification have to be fixed, not the code.
I didn't say that debugging is going to ensure conformance to business requirements. All I'm saying is that it is ridiculous to say that strongly typed programs don't need to be debugged. Strongly typed programs contain bugs too. And debugging (stepping through code with a debugger attached) is also a normal part of development. Sometimes its the only way to check what the program is really doing - cause the guys who wrote that +100K LOC (5 years ago) are no longer working at the company end documentation is almost non existing...
I said, why bother using "strong" type system if you still have to debug your code afterwards? You either use a real, proper static type system and then you never have to debug your code interactively, or you'll be more flexible with a dynamic type system and do all that hipster interactive stuff.
People tend to overuse interactive debugging, and it is really sad. Debugging is not a "normal" part of development. It should be considered a very last resort, when nothing else works. With a proper type system you don't have to step through your code to find out, what the program is "really doing" - types will tell you all about it straight away.
I agree - the biggest issue I have with Ruby is the duck typing, it's really easy to get oneself in trouble and it results in bad architecture (actually, no architecture). I really miss strong typing and good design practices (mainly interfaces and inheritance) that are simply missing. It doesn't mean that one can't do those things in Ruby, it's just that they're not typically done.
I'm a C++ coder. Aside from a quick note that C# code doesn't distinguish between namespace and class member stuff (always that single dot to divide things, instead of a nice :: ), I feel your pain.
PHP, for what it's worth, does have their === operator which is, by-and-large, a way to do some strongly-typed comparisons.
There's a place for weakly typed languages - it's a specialization with a place.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
the point is beginners rarely never follow tutorial whose subject is "refactor this 100 000 LOC project"
It's harder to appreciate strong typing from the beginner point of view.
For the one that already lost its hair once, the advantages are crystal clear.
harder to appreciate strong typing from the beginner point of view
Unrelated, but that reminds me of when I was just learning BASIC -- using floats (x) and heard about integers (x%), and thought, why would would I want to use an integer when the floats work just fine?