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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: Eric Clayberg Subject: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing again (was Re: OO, C++, and something much better!) Date: 1997/01/23 Message-ID: <32E7A686.56D@parcplace.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 211776369 references: <32DF458F.4D5C@concentric.net> <32DF94DC.6FF8@watson.ibm.com> <32DFD972.37E4@concentric.net> <32E4FC5B.242C@watson.ibm.com> <32E6862D.608B@parcplace.com> <32E764D0.23D9@calfp.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: ParcPlace-Digitalk, Inc. mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: clayberg@parcplace.com newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) Date: 1997-01-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Richie Bielak wrote: > but static typing _proves_ absence of certain kinds of errors. That's all well and good, but if the percentage of those kinds of errors is absurdly low in your application to begin with, it doesn't buy you very much. Furthermore, if the benefits provided by static typing (and I don't dispute that there are benefits) outweigh the costs (which can be considerable in some languages), then it can be a net loosing proposition. I'm actually somewhat ambivalent about static typing. I find it to be very useful in a language like C++ where the syntax is complex and the function invocation syntax makes it easy to transpose (or even leave out) arguments. Languages that have lots of rigid rules provide lots of opportunities to break them. I have never felt the need for a static typing system in Smalltalk (except maybe to provide better compile-time optimizations). The syntax is simple, the rules are few, and I just don't find myself making the same kinds of mistakes that are made all too frequently in other languages. I imagine that if you were to ask other folks who have programmed extensively in statically types languages (like C++) as well as Smalltalk, I suspect that you would get the same result. > What is the largest piece of Smalltalk code you worked on? How many > lines of code and how many developers? The largest Smalltalk project I worked on was well over a million lines of code and had 10-30 people working on it at any one time. The largest Smalltalk project that I worked on by myself had over 100,000 lines of code in it. I have personally written over 400,000 lines of commercial Smalltalk code (ranging from shrink-wrapped apps to mission critical MIS apps). Why do you ask? -Eric