Re: Check for redundancy

[Emanuel Berg]

<tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:

> and for reminding me of this one. I'd even go
> further than Stroustroup: if you have an untyped
> language, Hungarian is a losing proposition.
> The type "tags" in the var names are now possibly
> lying to you, which is even worse. IMHO better you
> embrace the untyped language and come up with more
> intelligent techniques [1] (or, if that's not your
> thing, you just change languages).

Indeed. For untyped languages, why put the types in
code where they aren't actually types anyway? And for
typed languages, why put them in code where they still
aren't types and even more, where they can indicate
the *incorrect* type as well?

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573