I don't agree. Static analysis captures errors that are not usually a
big problem. If your unit tests have enough coverage they will capture
all these errors, but static typing makes your programs too noisy since
you have to feed your compiler with a lot of crap. Very good example of
how bad it could be, check out java with generics. By increasing the
size of your program you increase the possibility of making a mistake
and your program becomes harder to read. 

Kent.

On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 22:00 +0900, slonik.az / gmail.com wrote:
> Very useful discussion that highlights quite few misconceptions.
> So far in this thread posters were contrasting "old school" static
> type and variable checking versus Ruby's dynamic nature with run-time
> Unit Testing properly done. The truth of the matter is that a
> programmer's life is easier when one has both:
> 
> 1: Static (aka compile time) program analysis that captures many
> "human" errors like typos, obvious flow control flaws, etc.
> 2: Dynamic, run-time program verification consisting of unit tests and
> integration tests.
> 
> Ruby clearly lacks static analysis tools.
> 
> Just my 2 cents
> --Leo--
> 
> 
> On 9/21/05, Warren Seltzer <warrens / actcom.net.il> wrote:
> > I am coming to Ruby having used the usual list of scripting and C*  languages.  Since Ruby
> > has such powerful programming features, I think it may be used for some really large
> > system.  My decades long observation of software is that small programs that succeed
> > become large programs.
> >
> > But I am concerned about Ruby's suitability for programming in the large.  First off, the
> > lack of the requirement to declare variables sounds like an invitation to programming
> > bugs.  It's just too easy to assign something to a misspelling of a variable name.  Make
> > the same spelling mistake again and you won't even get a warning about an undefined
> > variable.
> >
> > For example this 1-line program issues no error:
> >
> > puts @whatever
> >
> > This is a code bug that a statically typed compiler would scream about.
> >
> > -------------------
> >
> > Also: Is anybody doing a port to 64-bit systems?
> >
> > -------------------
> >
> > Also, a history question.  With Ruby coming out of Japan, why wasn't Unicode support done
> > earlier?  You'd think it would be insulated mono-lingual Americans who would delay that...
> >
> >
> > Warren Seltzer
> >
> >
> >
> >
>