Ben Giddings wrote:
> Once again, static typing reared its head on the mailing list, and once 
> again, the knights of the Ruby table slayed the beast... but it will 
> return.  The wheel of time continues to turn and the beast will return 
> again.
> 
> But really, when people talk about "static typing", what is it they 
> *really* want.  What does static typing buy you?  I'd argue it's simple.
> 
> Static typing tends to find typos and brainos in code before it's executed.
> 
> It's as simple as that.  I don't need to talk about the various down sides 
> to static typing here, but that upside is particularly important when 
> there are bits of code that might very rarely be executed.

The arguments I've heard for static typing rarely focus on catching 
finger farts.  Yes, that's a part of it, but the essence seems to be a 
desire for some assurance that not only does code compile and that 
objects respond to specific messages, but that the resulting behavior 
will match certain expectations.

(Oh, and speed is another argument.)

> 
> So the real question is: in a dynamic, strongly typed language like Ruby, 
> how do you find typos and brainos in code that your app may very rarely 
> use?

-w ?
-c ?

Comprehensive unit tests?

James