The Importance of Type Safety

[andrews at rbacomm.com (Brad Andrews)]

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#).