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: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: "Norman H. Cohen" Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/27 Message-ID: <32ECDB2F.2447@watson.ibm.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212549212 references: <32DF458F.4D5C@concentric.net> <32DF94DC.6FF8@watson.ibm.com> <32DFD972.37E4@concentric.net> <32E4FC5B.242C@watson.ibm.com> <32E6862D.608B@parcplace.com> <32E788D4.4B91@watson.ibm.com> <32E9F63A.159D@rase.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: ncohen@watson.ibm.com newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) Date: 1997-01-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Tansel Ersavas wrote: > In Smalltalk, I am internally testing a tool that captures and embeds > type checking automatically during development, and strips that > information when you request. This way I can actually apply not only > type checking, but few other checks that increase reliability > dramatically, while not compromising flexibility. You seem to agree with me, then, that Smalltalk plus static consistency checking (provided in this case by extra tools) is more valuable than Smalltalk without static checking. You also seem to agree that type checking is an important form of consistency checking. I have tried to focus my comments in this thread on the value of strong typing in general. Although I have used Ada as an example of a strongly-typed language, it is not my intent to engage in Smalltalk versus Ada language wars. However, I must correct some misimpressions in your post: > And you can never do things in Ada to increase flexibility dramatically. No, if you wanted, you could achieve all the weakness of the Smalltalk type system in an Ada program by declaring one type, Object, and using it as the root of all tagged type derivations. > People can use Ada where the business is killing > the right people, but, thanks, I'll use languages such as Smalltalk and > Self, and I know that I can make them as secure as possible if I want > to. By expensive investment in additional, nonstandard tools? (By the way, Ada is in common use in industies where the business is making sure you DON'T kill people--industries such as air-traffic control, avionics for civilian airliners, railroad control, and medical instrumentation.) -- Norman H. Cohen mailto:ncohen@watson.ibm.com http://www.research.ibm.com/people/n/ncohen