<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Debunking some static typing myths.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/140/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/140</link>
	<description>Just another Blogsavy.com weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:31:35 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark Smith</title>
		<link>http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/140#comment-300</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:28:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pinderkent.blogsavy.com/archives/153#comment-300</guid>
		<description>I usually stand more on the dynamic language side, but I have to agree with you about type inference and unit tests.

I think perhaps the main problem here is that most languages that use static typing  use type systems that are incredibly feeble. And, they generally lack type inference.

Shame :(.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I usually stand more on the dynamic language side, but I have to agree with you about type inference and unit tests.</p>
<p>I think perhaps the main problem here is that most languages that use static typing  use type systems that are incredibly feeble. And, they generally lack type inference.</p>
<p>Shame :(.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
