strong typing is not a panaceum, and, anyway...

[Brian Boutel]

Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
> 
> Brian Boutel to Sergey Mechveliani:
> 
> > > There is no scientific reason why  all  computations with types and
> > > type resolution should preceed all computations with non-types.
> 
> > No scientific reason, but a strong engineering reason.
> >
> > The engineering idea is to test a design with all available tools before
> > building it. That way there will be no disasters that could have been
> > forseen. The computing equivalent of an engineering disaster is for a
> > program to get a run-time error or to produce an incorrect result. If
> > this outcome is acceptable, then the program probably wasn't important
> > enough to be worth writing in the first place.
> 
> If an entity is sufficiently complex, there will be always a margin of
> error. Good if avoidable, but...
> 
> Would you apply the same philosophy of "non-importance" of a possibly bugged
> result, to procreating children?...

Comparing breeding children to programming is surely a little
far-fetched. I always enjoyed programming, but not nearly as much as
procreating ;-)

Anyway, procreating children is not science, nor yet engineering. It
must be art, where the concept of "bug" does not exist.

--brian