"Marc Heiler" <shevegen / linuxmail.org> wrote in message 
news:056c8e2d83a73b69ad3834113cab3294 / ruby-forum.com...
[ SNIP ]
> The biggest confusion I get here is simply that strong typing is touted
> as a very good thing to have. I dont know if this is the case or not,
> but it seems to me that this is more "behaviour" that is imposed onto
> the programmer anyway (as in, he must do extra work to ensure his
> variables are a certain way etc..)
> For example, the "strong typing" as described here appears to me more a
> "force the programmer to do this and that". This may have advantages in
> the long run, I dont know, maybe fewer bugs or no buffer overflow
> problems, but to me it still is forcing the programmer to comply. I dont
> get what is so great about having to worry about many details. And on
> blogs you do sometimes see proponents of this solution scold on the
> people that use another solution (not only typing, but also test driven
> development and so on...)

It sounds like by strong typing you actually mean static explicit typing, as 
in Java or C. Bear in mind that you can have static typing without explicit 
declarations, for example where type inference is used, like in Haskell or 
F# (or to some extent in C# 3.0). This removes one of your 
objections...inconvenience.

AHS