I'm not sure how that even follows from what I wrote.

Note, I am all for extensive static analysis. To the point that I am excited about such tools as Coverity and friends.

I am beginning to take exception to requiring ever more from the programmer. To the point that a programmer can't "in practice" specify a program correctly without a type checker. (Which... is what the parent post says. Right?)

I would much rather have it such that "in practice" we can specify programs without help. Since that implies that we can "in practice" read and reason about programs without extensive help, as well.

Sorry, didn't mean "compiler assistance", I meant "programmatic assistance" (as in your original reply). I hope my post makes more sense with that change!

So, it sounds like my post is still the more nonsensical. I'm not against any programmatic assistance. I am growing weary of the ones that require rather large stretches from the programmer to show dividends.

So, I would rather have a static analysis tool let me know that I am using data straight from the user, than I would generate a rather large type system that includes this. See GWT and the "SafeHtml" joy for an example of what sucks in programming.

Now, it can easily be argued that the problem there was Java not being quite strong enough, but even in languages like Scala, things can be difficult.

Of course, I have grown to love the Lisp world where people have pretty much agreed to write in the S expressions. Not because they are the most readable form, but because they really are ascii art of the structure of what you are trying to say.

So, yeah, I'm a jumble of conflicting feelings on this. :)