dynamic classes and duck typing

[BCS]

Hello dsimcha,

> == Quote from BCS (none at anon.com)'s article
> 
>> 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.
> 

OTOH, if it's done well (doesn't get in my way) and's built into the language, 
any static verification is free from the end users standpoint. Heck, even 
it it gets in your way but only for strange cases where your hacking around, 
it's still useful because it tells you where the high risk code is.