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: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public From: David Hanley Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/29 Message-ID: <32EF9457.7E2C@netright.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 213075037 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: 1997-01-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Eric Clayberg wrote: > > David Hanley wrote: > > > 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! > > Good. So you are admitting that you might be "uninformed" on this topic? Absolutely not. The fact that you, nor anyone else, have refuted it makes me only more sure of the assertion. > That's OK though. Since you haven't used Smalltalk, Untrue. I have written code in smalltalk. > I wouldn't expect > you to understand its capabilities. Of course not. Since I don't agree with you, I must not know the facts, ipso facto. > > Ok, I'm makign one assumption: > > static typing dynamic typing > > type errors few more > > other errors same same > > Hmmm. That's a mighty broad assumption. Do all statically typed > languages achieve the same error rates? Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The issue is static vs dynamic typing. > Do all dynamic languages? How > are you quantifying "few" and "more"? Could "more" mean "few+1"? What do > you consider "type" errors vs. "other" errors? Again, irrelevant. The issue is sytatic vs dynamic typing, and what it's effects on the frequency of program errors. I would be happy to hear one error describes which would not arise in a statically typed enviornment. This would, of course, destroy my enviornment. > > > Since we agree on the first line, the second one is then in question. > > Yeah. It gets back to your earlier "set of errors" argument. What are > you defining as "other errors". If you want to play this game, then you > should at least define your terms. Again, I would be happy to renounce the arguement if I could hear of one error which will not occur in a dynmaically typed enviornment as opposed to a static one. I have made this quite clear, and I suspect that the fact that you have not presented one meand that you can't think of any either. Of course, the number of errors which may occur are many, and I don't really feel like enumerating every single one! But, in the interest of reaching a speedy conclusion, let's throw a few out: Array out-of-bounds. Null pointer usage. Do you feel any of these are inherently less likely in a dynamically-typed language? if so, why? > Since this "set of errors" argument was yours, it would be much more > appropriate for you to actually back up your own argument and provide > said set of errors. Ok, it's all errors which are not un-understood message sends, ok? > Since I don't agree with your premise to begin with, > I don't know what set of errors you had in mind. If you provide the > list, I (and I'm sure many others) would be happy to point out which > ones don't apply. Ok, which errors don't apply, aside from not-understood messages? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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