Hello Goran!

> There have been at least one major investigation that (if my memory serves)
> showed that only 3% of the errors that the developers made when developing a
> system was found by the compiler using static type checking. I would guess that
> the overhead of maintaining that static type system in the code took much more
> time than it was worth.

Where did you get this value of 3%? Is there any paper which describe this experiment?


> I have been involved in those for so many times and have come to the conclusion
> that discussing it with people who only have experience with one side of the
> coin (mostly the "static types" side) doesn't lead anywhere. I have programmed
> in C/C++/Java/Smalltalk and many other languages - so I know both sides.

I absolutely agree on that!

Cheers,
Alexandre

> 
> regards, Göran
> 
> Göran Krampe, goran.krampe at bluefish.se
> GSM: +46 70 3933950, http://www.bluefish.se
> Smalltalk - a place where objects live, not a language.

-- 
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~bergel
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.