Re: [cinjug-users] Brandan Jones Presentation

["Jim Weirich" <jim.weirich@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/30/06, Edward Sumerfield <esumerfd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I am not suggesting that Republicans like strongly typed languages,
> just that there are lots of common characteristics between those that
> do and those that don't.

Oh wow!  If I didn't like the strong typing/checked exception
generalization, you can imangine my reaction to the above.  MUST
RESIST!

If you want to see the  canonical work on assigning politcal
views based upon OO design beliefs, check out comp.object circa 1998
when Eliot declared anyone who didn't create comprehensive, fully
ellaborated, graphical (
e.g. UML) designs before starting coding must be represive
right-wingers.

My thought was that the problem exists within the Java community
alone, and then is also addressed in conversations about whether we
should use alternative languages.

I agree that the problem exists in Java alone.  That's why I objected to the broad generalization of the statement.  The original was:

     You will tend to find that people that like strongly
     typed languages also like checked exceptions, where as those who
     prefer dynamically typed languages tend toward the unchecked variety.

First it is a false dicotomy.  Dynamically typed is not the opposite of strongly typed, but of statically typed.  Second, you will find broad disagreement amoung those who favor statically typed languages on value of checked exceptions. 

-- 
-- Jim Weirich    jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx     http://onestepback.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)