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: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: David Hanley Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/29 Message-ID: <32EF8DC6.24E7@netright.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 213061520 references: <32ED02EE.22E2@netright.com> <32ED2448.685A@parcplace.com> <32EE20A3.755D@netright.com> <5cm364$dc2@topdog.cs.umbc.edu> 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: 1997-01-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jacqueline U. Robertson wrote: > > Keywords: > Cc: > > In article <32EE20A3.755D@netright.com>, > David Hanley wrote: > >> > > 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? > > > Depends - are we including C and C++ here ? In either language, I have static > type checking, but I can use casting to defeat that type checking - thus, > I get NONE of the benefits of static typing, and also none of the benefits > of dynamic checks (as is done in Smalltalk). > > IMHO, he arument runs like this: In the case of Smalltalk, the 'cost' of > adding static typing ( in terms of reduced flexibility and slower > development time ) is not worth the 'gain'of static typing. To some > extent, this is a subjective statement - but having used C, C++, > and Smalltalk extensively, IMHO development is more rapid and > more safe (less error prone) in Smalltalk than in C or C++. I am completely willing to accept the fact that smalltalk development may be faster and more bug-free than C++ development. However, I don't necessarily accept the fact that this is becuase of static typing or the lack thereof. I don't even think c++'s type system is particularly nice. There are a lot of errors that can happen in c that won't crop up in smalltalk, such as a host of memory issues, etc. But this have nothing to do with static/dynamic typing. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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