Re: Build language with weak typing, then add scaffolding later to strengthen it?

[Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid>]

On 25.05.15 09:14, jan.de.kruyf@gmail.com wrote:
> And statistics prove that point. I have written

The mixture of "statistics" and "I have" is a little irritating,
but OTOH may be expected whenever the word "we" is understood as
a generalization of "I".

Since this is about proving a point about a full LRM as opposed
to a short language report and productivity:

The scope of Oberon is indicated spcefically at projectoberon.com:
"Its simplicity and clarity enables a single person to know and
  implement the entire system"

Wirth is said to have immediately recommended Ada for anything
of larger scope. Ichbiah has addressed the "single person know-everything"
in his 1984 interview.

To answer your list of suggestive remarks, put as questions, briefly:
Yes, one needs precision whenever one gets out of ones garage
(alternatively, one's corner). Proves are much less vague if
the assumptions are (and can be!) actually stated, or referred to.

Speaking of assumptions, Hoare's latest (2004) edition of CSP has
some 230 pages. Is it "baroque", too? Do programmers not need to know
anything  from it, just the Active Oberon report instead?

Kindly indicate the mark which my "commentary" on the Component Pascal
report was off. That is, would the report still be short if its authors
had liked to handle case distinctions in the way that Ada does, or
Haskell-OCaml-F#, or static C analyzers, etc.  Doesn't a more expressive
fundamental type system result in higher productivity and better
code, easier to keep correct during maintenance, even though
it takes a little longer to learn, although not much,
according to McCormick's repeated findings?