Re: Why I don't believe in static typing

From: Feuer (feuer_at_his.com)
Date: 11/23/03 

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:24:56 -0500

Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>
> I'm sorry - I guess I was thinking of the software that computes dosage
> based on tumor size, location, etc., before treatment begins, not the
> hardware microcontroller for the xray itself, or for a robot arm.
> Dosimetry software still needs sanity checks and failsafes, no? The
> hardware microcontrollers would, as you say, be implemented with hard
> real time guarantees.

I see. That software has a pretty good failsafe: whatever it
spits out is reviewed by a doctor.

> So in these
> situations, statically typed really does mean C-like languages, where
> the programmer has to make explicit type declarations. This makes it
> seem like the protestations of static typing advocates that statically
> typed doesn't mean C and it's bretheren are a little misleading. In the
> situation where you arguably most want static type guarantees, static
> typing does mean C-like explicit type declarations, and not the type
> inference of Haskell or Ocaml.

The ability to make explicit type declarations does not imply
the necessity to declare all types. Also, when I think of
"C-like languages", I don't even begin to think of languages
with type systems designed for real-time use.

David