From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ab1d177a5a26577d
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Chuck" <chuckmacdonald@nospam.me>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What's wrong with C++?
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:20:09 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <ijl32s$kdh$1@news.eternal-september.org>
References: 
 <1ee1a434-4048-48f6-9f5e-d8126bebb808@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
 <b1f0b153-dc79-4b3c-a936-68723e76a4db@x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <jbejuuszjy3y.vyllayr73kh0$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <alpine.WNT.2.00.1102170835130.5612@WHIRLWIND>
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 06:20:12 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx03.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="Nvo31E/p3EKlT4bDI5+9FA";
	logging-data="20913"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18eJ/rL492K5KHHVMberomn"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Kg4NzjZhv/EcOgkiBXGnjKzf4z4=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:18367
Date: 2011-02-18T00:20:09-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Peter C. Chapin wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>
>> The flaw here is structural equivalence and, more generally, type
>> inference. Not everybody agree that type inference is bad. I do
>> believe that it is.
>
> Could you elaborate a little on why you think type inference is bad?
> In the functional languages that support it, type inference is
> completely type safe (for example: Haskell, OCaml, Scala). Perhaps
> you mean something different.
> I do agree that type annotations can be useful documentation for the
> programmer trying to read the program, but a program won't "go wrong"
> because of type inference.
>

"Can be useful"? Understatement of the century I think! "auto": one step 
away from 
POINTNCLICKYOURSELFTOPROGRAMMINGNIRVANNA-GUI-WHIZZIWIGBANG-WEGOTYABYTHEBALLSNOWPROGRAMMERWANTEDTOBE.