> > In any case, I wouldn't consider static typing an arcane computer
> > science concern at all... most of the more popular languages these
> > days use static typing.

	" everyone else jumps off a cliff, why not you"
>
> The PL community certainly has fads, and this is one of them.  Static
> typing is a delightful *research area*, but it's usefulness is mostly
> unproven.  PL people don't bother -- they just publish 10-50 line
> neat-looking programs, make broad statements about how all the other
> PL guys dig static typing, too, and conclude that it must be good.
>
>
>
> -Lex

	You want strong typing? Look at the problems it causes JAVA wrt to 
Collection classes, and the LOVELY solution that JAVA came up with for 
1.5.

	I'm starting to think that all strongly typed OOP languages eventually 
end up looking like C++, as more 'features' ( hacks ) are used to work 
around the 'benefits' (bugs) of static typing....

	"Strong Typing" is good...
	"garbage collection" is slow... ( compared to tracking down memory 
leaks? )

	These dead horses get beatten alot.

	-Daniel