Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Roedy Green Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: in praise of type checking Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 12:39:22 -0700 Organization: Canadian Mind Products Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Roedy Green NNTP-Posting-Host: RCd/Ul4tyxGUBII8WGwa5g.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:8640 On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:19:32 -0300, Arved Sandstrom wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >I don't myself see the awfulness inherent in *me* >having to check that all the uses of a changed method are still correct. It is not about having to check, it is about feeling confident the final work is perfect. It does not rely on me being perfect. This sort of work is very tedious. To catch an error by proofreading or by debugging takes much much longer than having the type system check for you. And further, no matter how much checking you do, you still are not 100% sure it is correct. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com It should not be considered an error when the user starts something already started or stops something already stopped. This applies to browsers, services, editors... It is inexcusable to punish the user by requiring some elaborate sequence to atone, e.g. open the task editor, find and kill some processes.