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: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: David Hanley Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/28 Message-ID: <32EE20A3.755D@netright.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212785964 references: <5buodl$bci@boursy.news.erols.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: netright technologies mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: david_nospam@netright.com newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (WinNT; I) Date: 1997-01-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Eric Clayberg wrote: > > David Hanley wrote: > > Baloney boomerang. You've made dozens of counterintuitive claims for > > dynamic typing( smalltalk in particular ) and supported zero of them. > > Counterintuitive to who? To someone who knows little about Smalltalk? To people who understand programming, and, in particualr, static typing. ;) Another quick scan of this group would make it equally obvious that while some may find these claims intuitive, many other find the same claims counterintuitive, and contrary to thier experience. If we all found it intuitive, there's be no discussion, right? > It is the claim that Smalltalk > is somehow less reliable than statically typed languages that I have > seen zero support for (other than conjecture and innuendo). The simple arguemnt follows. > > > In fact, people on the static typing 'side' of the issue, such as Fergus > > Henderson, have provided good data with compelling arguemnts for static > > typing. > > He certainly presented some data. It wasn't very clear that it provided > much support for static typing, however. In fact, his numbers > (especially the variety of errors that he ran into) only served to make > me (and, I imagine, most of the other Smalltalk developers in this > thread) quite happy that I was using Smalltalk (in which, as was pointed > out in response to his numbers, most of those errors couldn't occur). Again, you showed nothing of the sort. In fact, it seemed that you don't completely understand the issues involved with a good static typed system. > > > A good proof would be there the set of errors which can happen in a > > statically typed system, as opposed to a dynamically typed syatem, are > > fewer. This is a very simple arguemnt. > > OK, then, back it up. So far, *you* haven't *proven* anything. I have. All other things being equal, there are fewer errors that can happen in a static typed system, as opposed to a dynamially typed system. Your refusal to accept this simple arguement makes you appear as if you have some kind of religous attachment to your system. Let's start very simply; is the above system true or false? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ David Hanley, Software Developer, NetRight technologies. My employer pays me for my opinions; nonetheless he does not share all of them E-mail address munged to defeat automailers, Delete _nospam