So, not surprisingly, the fine article and the original quote seem to be at odds, and both are more than a little obtuse. First, if you're going to have a stat

So, not surprisingly, the fine article and the original quote seem to be at odds, and both are more than a little obtuse. First, if you're going to have a statically typed language with no type declarations, how else are you going to do type checking? Sure, it's generally agreed that Hungarian warts are unnecessary in this day of tools (editors, IDEs, what have you) that will tell you what type a variable is in an instant, but if you're playing some silly game of "let's set arbitrary constraints to see how convoluted we can get", then you very well might come up with required Hungarian warts. Second, if hardware programming is a place where static type checking would be a boon, could it not be said that any language which doesn't have it built in is less than ideal for the task? It's been a while since I've programmed in Verilog, but surely there must be other off the shelf tools (both OSS and otherwise) that would be better suited. Even if you stick with Verilog and go the route that the article describes, that's not trolling, that's just practicality. This article is interesting in and of itself, and I'm glad to see it hit the front page, but the author could have left off the quote and not claimed to be a PL troll.