dynamic classes and duck typing

[dsimcha]

== Quote from BCS (none at anon.com)'s article
> Hello dsimcha,
> > My biggest gripe about static verification is that it can't help you
> > at all with high-level logic/algorithmic errors, only lower level
> > coding errors.  Good unit tests (and good asserts), on the other hand,
> > are invaluable for finding and debugging high-level logic and
> > algorithmic errors.
> >
> I don't have a link or anything but I remember hearing about a study MS did
> about finding bugs and what they found is that every reasonably effective
> tool they looked at found the same amount of bugs (ok, within shouting distance,
> close enough that none of them could be said to be pointless) but different
> bugs. The way to find the most bugs is to attack it from many angle. If I
> can have a language that can totally prevent one class of bugs in vast swaths
> of code, that's a good thing, even if it does jack for another class of bugs.

Right, but the point I was making is that you hit diminishing returns on static
verification very quickly.  If you have even very basic static verification, it
will be enough to tilt the vast majority of your bugs towards high-level
logic/algorithm bugs.