From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c406e0c4a6eb74ed
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail
Sender: jsa@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request
References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com>
 <cgpma7$pet$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <slrncj0nmf.hl6.adi@ppc201.mipool.uni-jena.de>
 <cgppvn$t4m$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <6F2Yc.848$8d1.621@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <m3isb2ey3w.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <hMnYc.1759$w%6.1486@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <m3656vfgmf.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <e749549b.0409042036.5d4822a2@posting.googlOrganization: LJK Software
 <vpblkhspuA9F@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <e749549b.0409051449.574ec9ce@posting.google.com>
 <m3wtz7e4hd.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <413e2fbd$0$30586$626a14ce@news.free.fr> <wvbrsm9tjg7e.fsf@sun.com>
From: jayessay <nospam@foo.com>
Organization: Tangible
Date: 08 Sep 2004 12:08:19 -0400
Message-ID: <m3n000bv64.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: 
 DXC=8CT7RKAV19NR6Z;QT>F06L0R]m=BkYWIG:6bU3OT9S9JhCF8eBK1g5C^aM2i8keRmM8eU9IHVPL>O
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3490
Date: 2004-09-08T12:08:19-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen  writes:

> >>>>> "LD" == Lionel Draghi <Lionel.nospam.Draghi@Ada-France.org> writes:
> 
>     LD> jayessay wrote:
>     LD> ...
>    >> Exactly.  Actually this sort of development will save you much more
>    >> time and money than you could ever hope for from typical static typing.
> 
>     LD> How could this be?
>     LD> With powerful typing you write code.
>     LD> Without, you write as much code and much more tests.
> 
> You are missing the point. He is not arguing against strong typing,
> but against *static* typing.

Yes, you are correct.  Dynamic typing is every bit (and in some ways
more) strong as static typing.


/Jon

-- 
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com