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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: David Hanley Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/28 Message-ID: <32EE86CC.6258@netright.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212967291 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: > > To people who understand programming, and, in particualr, static typing. > > That's a mighty arrogant assertion on your part. It's also sarcastic on my part. I find one of the most diffucult part about talking to religous fanatics of any kind is that they don't understand basic sarcasm. > > 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? > > Very true. In fact, it looks like number of folks who find the claims > intuitive and the number who don't are roughly the same in this > discussion. From my point of view, the answer is not as clear cut as you > would like us to believe. I'm not saying that there's a clear-cut answer; never did. What I object to is some bigoted person periodically posting how dramatically better (ST/C/C++/COBOL/JAVA/etc) is than all other languages, and how all programmers who do not use it are idiots. Frankly, I don't care what language you happen to like; it doesn't affect me in the slightest. It's when people make uninformed derogitory remarks that I get irritated. > > 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. > > Not at all. It's simply that your "argument" isn't that simple. Ok. > While > static typed systems will, in fact, prevent certain classes of errors, > you have not proven that dynamically typed languages (like Smalltalk) > don't *also* prevent certain classes of errors. Ok. Since we both agree that there is a certian class of errors that statically typed languages prevent, what needs to be shown is what errors dynamically typed languages will prevent. I am not aware of these, and I sure haven't seen any sign of them! > Thus the issue of > "fewer" errors is not very clean cut at all. If you are merely arguing > that a static typed system will have fewer *type* errors in it, then > fine, I can buy that. Okay, good progress... > If you are asserting that this means that there > are fewer errors over all, then you haven't proved anything at all. Ok, I'm makign one assumption: static typing dynamic typing type errors few more other errors same same Since we agree on the first line, the second one is then in question. If you don't present a reason why there will be fewer other errors in a statically typed language, I'm going to assume that there will be fewer erors total, though, hey, I might learn something from your counter-arguement. Enlighten me. > So, > once again, I ask, where is your proof that Smalltalk is somehow less > reliable for building applications than any arbitrary statically typed > language? Because the run-time error set is larger. > Since you say that this would be a good proof, then why don't you > present the "set of errors" that you see on both sides of the coin and > let us all take a crack at it? Without that, your argument degrades to > so much empty sophistry. I can think of a lot of errors. I think it would be more productive if you listed the errors you think don't apply. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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