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: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
From: Rolf Breuning <Rolf.Breuning@post.rwth-aachen.de>
Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better!
Date: 1997/01/29
Message-ID: <32EF1366.2229@post.rwth-aachen.de>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 212950206
references: <JSA.97Jan16141937@alexandria> <5buodl$bci@boursy.news.erols.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Aachen University of Technology / Rechnerbetrieb Informatik
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: breu@eecs.rwth-aachen.de
newsgroups: 
 comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02E (OS/2; I)
Date: 1997-01-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


> 
>         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.

- I think the whole discussion can be concentrated on one point: Can a
language
  like Smalltalk due to its lack of typing be more productive? 

  If yes, then you'll have to accept the following answer: 
    Any logical error or performance flaw you coudn't correct because
you are
    using a less productive environment is due to your environment using
static
    typing.

  Many people (including me) believe that this is the case and there are
at least
  some hints for performance measurement that go into this direction
(e.g. the 
  'Function point' measures).

  [ And greater productivity may not only come from other aspects of
Smalltalk, but
    also from the lack of static typing: Assume in e.g. C++ you defined
two classes 
    with a similar function and a similar set of messages (like 'Array'
and 
    'OrderedCollection'). For a specific application you defined
variables of type
    'Array'. 
    Somebody else wants to reuse your code, but wants to use an
'OrderedCollection'
    In C++ he must invest the time to change the code of the library (or
let you 
    change it) to avoid typing errors. Possibly you must create a common
superclass
    for 'Array' and 'OrderedCollection' if it does not yet exist.
    In this case, without static typing, the code simply could have been
reused. ]

- I think what we can learn from this discussion is: We won't get
anywhere without
  a scientifically executed study comparing the results of some
carefully chosen 
  groups of experienced / less experienced programmers of a language
given a set of
  tasks and comparing how they fit the requirements after a certain
amount of time.
  Some independent studies of this could at least give us answers for
the tasks which 
  were examined like 
   - 'Smalltalk is good for GUI Bussiness apps / distribution' or
   - 'C++ is good for Operating Systems'
   - ....
  I'm really impressed by Smalltalk, and I assume you are happy with
  your-language-of-choice, but without a thorough examination containing
the whole
  development process and the whole life cycle of the resulting
products, I'm sure
  all *we* can say is: language x is - in this certain aspect - *other*
than language
  y.
  All other may be true and our personal experience - but it can't be
true in a
  scientific sense which would enable us to persuade other people easily
to our
  believes.

- That's why I strongly reject any remark of the static typing community
that 
  "because Smalltalk doesn't provide static typing, the programs must
have more
   errors"

**********************************************************************
* Rolf Breuning                             breu@eecs.rwth-aachen.de *
* Bahnhofstr.7                                     using OS/2 Warp 4 *
* D-52064 Aachen                             - standard disclaimer - *
**********************************************************************