On Dec 10, 11:21 am, "Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality" <ihates... / hotmail.com> wrote: > "Dumaiu" <Dym... / gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:399c73dc-226e-4e6c-bda5-37104b24dd16 / v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Dec 8, 7:51 pm, "Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality" > > <ihates... / hotmail.com> wrote: > >> So, I had a conversation with a colleague of mine and he brought up a > >> feature request for another language that is a lot like Ruby but is not > >> Ruby. It was an interesting request and, after I had thought about it a > >> bit, I discovered that I would like this feature, too! > > > Hum. Why don't you try comp.lang.ruby.like.but.not.ruby instead? I > > hear it's "phat." > > >> The two most popular sources of bugs for me when programming in Ruby > >> are: > > >> 1) Passing the wrong object as a parameter to a method. > >> 2) Accidentally creating a new variable. > > > Seriously, as someone prone to lack of concentration, I agree. A > > great many programmers have concluded, probably from painful > > experience, that typed variables reduce error. Also I think that > > building error-testing into the code will scale better than reliance > > only on unit testing. > > I actually don't think this is the case. Statically typed languages > didn't come from long experience with bugs, it was just happenstance... > If I'm not mistaken, typed variables came from a world where compiled > programming languages failed to completely shield the user from the > hardware. Back then, you had to declare variables so that the compiler can > know to allocate them from static store when creating the executable image. > Later on, when functions became more popular, they also had to do this for > the stack. A lot of C syntax comes from how close it is to assembly > language... Sounds reasonable. However, I didn't mention the languages' provenance, but that people continue to be interested in them. And not just for static typing. People like... you, for example?