From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,21960280f1d61e84
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: in defense of GC
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
In-Reply-To: <u7iuuwgx4.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
References: <1169531612.200010.153120@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
	 <L2ith.12633$ji1.1337@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>
	 <mailman.44.1169724732.18371.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
	 <WaBuh.15096$pQ3.10501@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
	 <xwsldwre3j.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
	 <HYPuh.15976$yx6.6882@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
	 <md64ashx3o.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
	 <1mahvxskejxe1$.tx7bjdqyo2oj$.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <2tfy9vgph3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
	 <1g7m33bys8v4p.6p9cpsh3k031$.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <s1mz41g7d3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
	 <14hm72xd3b0bq$.axktv523vay8$.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <4zwt33xm4b.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
	 <1j7neot6h1udi$.14vp2aos6z9l8.dlg@40tude.net>
	 <ubqkd8yk3.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
	 <AuednXvMpOTR8l_YnZ2dnUVZ_ruknZ2d@megapath.net>
	 <u7iv18hm3.fsf_-_@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
	 <wccr6t5e7bw.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <utzy1rn1z.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
	 <wccr6t45du2.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <uzm7rofqn.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
	 <ms1wl3tsif.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>  <u7iuuwgx4.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: #
Message-Id: <1170838486.7656.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 09:54:46 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: 07 Feb 2007 09:54:33 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: e8693bba.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=JgYmE[8V8EGk:C4l9A;OcOMcF=Q^Z^V3H4Fo<]lROoRAgUcjd<3m<;BIF1a<]CH^AFPCY\c7>ejVHQ1DQM4S7CC@00<1BDW=0EF
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9057
Date: 2007-02-07T09:54:33+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 07:44 +0000, Ray Blaak wrote:

> The funny thing is that the whole dynamic thing just doesn't seem to fail as
> badly as the static typing purists would have us believe. Now I do want my
> strong static typing, espcially for parameter mismatches on function calls,
> but I find it interesting that significant software can get done just fine in
> Lisp.
> 
> I have always had OCaml on my list to dig into more. Maybe I should actually
> get around to it.

If you do this, perhaps you can find the time to use a, uh, stop-watch
to measure the time it takes to produce, read, and change the programs?
I.e., to technically manage significant software. The times will be
important input for deciding whether or not static typing does indeed
help in production.
The only thing that relates to economic efficiency, if you want it :-)


 -- Georg