That's what the statically-typed language people say. But I've seen no research to back it up. And my own experience, even with ReSharper, is that it's a distraction from the crafting of software more than an aid.

In addition, there are many cases in the statically typed languages (think: Reflection) even without the Dynamic keyword where type differences could be an issue. And why do these cases exist? Because, as I see it, the statically typed language has once more gotten fatally in the way of doing what needs to be done in the software, and hence the non-static workarounds.

In any case, whether you are getting the right "type" of variable is really the least of it. You will still have to test for the various inputs possible. And in doing that, any type problems are going to appear anyway, and will be blindingly obvious and easily fixed.

I used to have a problem keeping track of where a ballpoint pen was when I needed one. Now, I could have instituted a strict set of rules about where pens could be placed, etc. But who wants to be distracted in the course of life (business in this case) by that kind of thing? I took the other approach: I ordered 6 dozen ballpoint pens on special, and soon had saturated my environment, like a saturated sugar solution. I know had my pen when I wanted it, and did not saddle myself with distractions.

I prefer to craft software without unnecessary distractions, even if rare type mismatches crop up in the testing required in statically typed and dynamic languages. A big difference in debugging in dynamic languages, at least for me, is that during the course of debugging I can execute anything I want as part of exploring the nature of the problem. This is worth much, much more than eliminating the most trivial kind of error imaginable.

Hank

>>>You know I respect your opinion and expertise. But I honestly don't get the distaste for strong typing (not limited to you). IMO it protects me from bugs before they happen.
>>
>>Yeah, but at the same time you end about half the code for keeping the compiler happy. You also have to buy into all kinds of techniques that are not neccesary in dynamic languages (take ORM, or early binding com interfaces), reflection etc.
>>
>>I just don't want to keep telling irrelevant stuff (for me) about the type of variables I'm going to use. If I want to do a SELECT * FROM WhatEverTable, I just wan't to use thaw result without going through casting, typed resultsets etc.
>>
>>I want to concentrate on solving a business problem, not concentrate on telling the compiler what it could figure out at runtime.
>
>But that's the point. The runtime can't necessarily figure it out. The compiler already had its chance and may have let some glaring errors through.