This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Ruby Buzz by Rick DeNatale. Original Post: Yegge's At It Again! Feed Title: Talk Like A Duck Feed URL: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/articles.atom Feed Description: Musings on Ruby, Rails, and other topics by an experienced object technologist. Latest Ruby Buzz Posts Latest Ruby Buzz Posts by Rick DeNatale Latest Posts From Talk Like A Duck

Well, we also know that static types are just metadata. They’re a specialized kind of comment targeted at two kinds of readers: programmers and compilers. Static types tell a story about the computation, presumably to help both reader groups understand the intent of the program. But the static types can be thrown away at runtime, because in the end they’re just stylized comments. They’re like pedigree paperwork: it might make a certain insecure personality type happier about their dog, but the dog certainly doesn’t care. – Steve Yegge

And he’s getting the predictable responses from the static-typing advocates.

One quibble I’ve got with what I’ve just quoted, is that, in many languages, static types aren’t just comments. In the C++ implementations I’ve looked at, for example, the typing is used to generate runtime code which relies on the typing done at compile time. The other day I wrote about instance variable access in Java, Smalltalk and Ruby. In C++ instance variable (field) access is static and based on offsets. If a type error get’s past the compiler, say by a bad pointer manipulation, the run-time code can access a non-existant variable, possibly clobbering something vital.

In fact this “bug” is possible not in spite of static type checking, but because the compiler uses static type checking to affect the code, and “throws away” the information needed at run-time to avoid it.