Re: Is strong typing worth the cost?

["Pat Rogers" <progers@classwide.com>]

"dmjones" <derek@NOSPAMknosof.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns91FFC7B971B88derekknosofcouk@194.168.222.64...
> >> I have been trying to locate evidence that the cost of the use
> >> of strong typing is repaid by a greater benefit.
<snip>
> The experiment I had in mind was two set of subjects, all
> working on the same Ada program.  However, one set of subjects
> is not allowed to use subranges or subtypes. All objects
> holding integer values have integer type.  The other
> set of subjects would be able to create as many different
> integer types as they liked.
>
> How long would each group of subjects take to complete their
> tasks, and what would down stream maintenance costs be (for
> programs created by each set of subjects)

That's an extremely narrow definition of strong typing!  Are you sure you don't
want to include the more typical "abstract data type" concept, as embodied by
Ada's private types?

When I review customer Ada code and see few or no private types I start to
worry.

---
Patrick Rogers                       Consulting and Training in:
http://www.classwide.com          Real-Time/OO Languages
progers@classwide.com               Hard Deadline Schedulability Analysis
(281)648-3165                                 Software Fault Tolerance