"Strong typing vs. strong testing"

[Ian Collins]

On 10/ 2/10 05:18 AM, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> Seebs<usenet-nospam at seebs.net>  writes:
>
>> On 2010-10-01, Pascal J. Bourguignon<pjb at informatimago.com>  wrote:
>>>                                  static              dynamic
>>>
>>> compiler detects wrong type     fail at compile     fails at run-time
>>>                                                      (with exception
>>>                                                      explaining this is
>>>                                                      the wrong type)
>>
>> Unless, of course, the "wrong type" happens to be compatible enough to
>> pass.  In which case, it's unclear whether it is the "wrong type" or not.
>>
>>> compiler passes wrong type      wrong result        fails at run-time
>>>                                  (the programmer     (with exception
>>>                                  spends hours        explaining this is
>>>                                  finding the         the wrong type)
>>>                                  problem)
>>
>> I have no clue what exact scenario you're talking about here.  I've never
>> seen a bug that could plausibly be described as "compiler passes wrong
>> type" which wasn't picked up quickly by running with more warnings enabled.
>
> This is the scenario discussed in this thread, a long is passed to
> maximum without a compiler warning.

Which will cause the test for the bit of code doing the call to fail. 
So it fails at run-time with a failed test, just as it would in a 
dynamic language.

-- 
Ian Collins