> Every program is going to have some kind of semantic problem that cannot easily be fixed with compile-time analysis. Unsafe strings in web applications are me

> Every program is going to have some kind of semantic problem that cannot easily be fixed with compile-time analysis. Unsafe strings in web applications are merely one example for one class of programs written in one class of languages. If you grasp what he’s saying about coding conventions, ignore the example. I disagree. If the example has a better solution (and in some other comment here I argue it does, though it's not at compile time), it's well worth looking if that solution could be transferred to other problem domains that could be used as examples instead. The deeper issue is that naming conventions are a kind of automatism, and humans shouldn't be bothered with that, they are simply not very good with this type of automatism. For repetitive patterns, automated solutions should be used. Advocating these repetitive type prefixes reminds me of the classical Design Patterns -- they might be the best option if you're stuck with one set of tools, but IMHO it's important to take a broader view and see if there are maybe other tools that can alleviate the need of such patterns. And indeed, in the case of the classical Design Patterns, there are. More powerful languages render some of them obsolete, or turn them into trivial 3 line solutions that you can hardly call "patterns" anymore.