Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing

H. S. Lahman wrote:
>
> One of the common issues of the Interminable Static Vs. Dynamic Debates
> is that certain errors are caught statically that can only be caught at
> run-time in dynamic languages. The static proponents argue that this
> indicates a potential safety issue for released applications. The
> dynamic proponents invariably counter that, in practice, such run time
> errors are rare and, when they do occur, it is early in the development
> cycle.
>
> While it is difficult to pinpoint exactly why that would be, the
> observation is so pervasive among dynamic practitioners that one must
> conclude that those sorts of defects are precluded by the general and
> unique /way/ that dynamic programs are constructed. So it seems quite
> plausible that such a construction paradigm might also reduce the value
> of Intellisense in such environments. If so, then resolving your
> question will be just as difficult as resolving whether static or
> dynamic languages are better. B-)
>
Interesting reasoning, but I think it's flawed. Supposing a debate on
the subject were to occur, then we would likely get an uncountable
number of posts P1, P2, P3... Static analysis, however, informs us
that the sequence is non-convergent, and that this debate will not lead
to a conclusion, thus demonstrating the superiority of static analysis.

Regards,
Daniel Parker

.