I say drawn in because my underlying philosophy in all of these things is to choose the right tool for the job and leave it at that. I know, hardly original thinking, but despite the mantra and the collective nod that this is true we still get very heated on issues that are not actually at odds with each other.
Anyway, Mat Podwsocki presents a great summary of the debate with links to a few bloggers here :
The original Steve Yegge presentation is here :
And the response that I enjoyed the most is here :
I enjoyed Greg's response because it just really got me thinking. I honestly know nothing about the design by contract research that's going on, but it just feels like something that makes sense. I got excited just imagining seeing errors like the ones described showing up in our project at compile time. I believe that if we were using such a system we would see a real improvement in quality. I can see how some would see this as an unnecessary burden on the developer, but these are probably the same crowd not writing their unit tests.
Design by contract is really a great example of what I mean when I'm thinking about the potential for statically typed languages in tool sets.