Strongly Typed Languages

One thing that I've never liked about JavaScript is that it's not a strongly typed programming language.  I get the arguments around dynamic typing but I've never found the benefits to be anything substantial.  Strong typing is also why I preferred Delphi over Visual Basic when I first started Windows programming.

Dare's post about implicit type declarations in C# 3.0 and refactoring tools that suggest using "var" in place of using a static types is troublesome.  Readability is one thing, but the biggest benefit to me of strongly typed languages is the amount of runtime errors that can be prevented at compile time.  I'd rather know that the property I'm trying to access on an object doesn't exists before I run code. 

Dare's point about variable naming is also something that I think about often when writing code.  MyObject.Name is my preferred way of writing as opposed to MyObject.MyObjectName - even though it may be a little more readable when I come back to the code later, the extra time and space to include type information in a property name isn't worth it.

This reminds me of when I first heard that versions of .Net will allow you to mix C# or VB directly into your SQL stored procedures.  Yes, it may give less experienced programmers the ability to manipulate SQL results with languages they already know, but it discourages learning the proper use of the programming tools they have.  You can hit a nail with a wrench, but a hammer works much better.

I also see now why people say they blog less when they start using twitter - I'm making an effort to change that.