[SC-L] The Importance of Type Safety
Brad Andrews
andrews at rbacomm.com
Mon Mar 23 12:37:11 EST 2009
Sure, but I would challenge that it is a rather meaningless statement.
I can keep my children safer if I keep them inside and eliminate all
the sharp corners, but then they will never get to use the swimming
pool in our back yard. Type safety can be good and appropriate, but
it is not the only factor.
Perhaps we will get to a world where all the "management overhead"
doesn't matter, but until then, the extra cost for type safety should
be weighed against other factors, not just discounted out of hand.
Getting back to the topic at hand, perhaps building a Sauder cabinet
is less likely to end up having you harm yourself with tools, but the
end product is not always as strong. The "price" of having more
structure is the loss of some high end features. That said, I own
some such shelving and they work fairly well, but I don't discount
building shelves (letting someone else do the work) because of a
higher "risk" doing so.
Just a thought.
Brad
Quoting Gary McGraw <gem at cigital.com>:
> Building secure software in a non type safe language is much harder
> than building secure software in a type safe language (like Java or
> C#).
More information about the SC-L
mailing list