Hacker News Reader

Reminds me of Kent Pitman's article about, among other things, why there's no generic deep-copy in Lisp: http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PS/EQUAL.html

His answer is similar: just because you know the structure of something doesn't mean you know anything about its semantics.

Because of this, I'm tending to believe that adding more strong-typing to languages is a losing battle, though I admit this raises more questions than answers.

View on HN

> Because of this, I'm tending to believe that > adding more strong-typing to languages is a > losing battle,

I see this at the opposite.

Just because an object says that it responds to a method doesn't guarantee that invoking said method will succeed. I'm not sure why the original poster is so surprised by this finding.

Since this observation is valid in both statically and dynamically typed languages, I prefer a statically typed one since at least, I don't need to verify that the object does respond to that method before calling it.

A question and answer that might be relevant: http://www.reddit.com/r/ruby/comments/8ba5g/my_objection_to_...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com