Interview at Lang.NEXT

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 2014-06-05 09:30, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> I have to confess this echoes a few similar confusions I have about the
> use and advocacy of dynamically-typed languages. One argument I've heard
> a while back was that static type errors are not "proportional response"
> and that static types only detect the most trivial of bugs, so why
> bother at all. But then the heavy-handed approach to unittesting
> espoused by dynamic languages, of which arguably a good part would be
> automated by a static type system, seems to work against that argument.

Since the software we write today is so complex, even detecting the most 
trivial bugs are useful. We need every help we can get.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg