>>>>>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.
>>
>>A dynamic language can. A static typed language cannot.
>>
>>>The compiler already had its chance and may have let some glaring errors through.
>>
>>Yeah.... but there technically is not anything that prevents dynamic languages to have type checking at compile time. I think VFP.Net was about that too. If you wish to use static typing for the purpose of catching errors at compile time and performance, you could, but it does not force you into having to use it where it just makes more sense to trust the developer on getting the types right and only raise an error at runtime if its not.
>
>No, nothing prevents it. Some languages do that kind of error checking, some don't.
>
>I don't always get the types right. Maybe you are a better developer than me.

Thats exactly my point, After having programmed in C/C++, Pascal, all strict typed languages, FoxPro and VFP were such a relief.... no silly error messages anymore because I got the type wrong. No jumping through hoops like using virtual classed to keep the compiler happy. And more recently a lot less needing certain design patterns to work arround type checking.

I've got a question for you, maybe you can answer it for me.
How do you handle late binding to COM objects? for example: If you want to open any version (> version office 96) of MS word to do a mailmerge, do you still have to work extensively with casting?

How would you compare using late bound COM objects in strict typed languages compared to dynamic typed languages.

Walter,