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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d89b08801f2aacae X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-01 07:32:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: mjsilva697@earthlink.net (Mike Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is strong typing worth the cost? Date: 1 May 2002 07:32:29 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <27085883.0205010632.4c8225d8@posting.google.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.179.251.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1020263549 10265 127.0.0.1 (1 May 2002 14:32:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 May 2002 14:32:29 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23340 Date: 2002-05-01T14:32:29+00:00 List-Id: dmjones wrote in message news:... > > Me: I am dealing with developers who use a weakly typed > language. To change existing practice I need evidence > that it is worthwhile. The default is weak, I am not recommending > anything unless I have evidence one way or the other. How about doing what I did: keep track of each bug found in their currently-developing code, and then determine whether strong typing would have either prevented it or turned a multi-day debug into a multi-minute debug. This will prove to be a very sobering exercise, especially in the case of bugs so nasty that they had programmers considering new careers in door-to-door sales. Mike