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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: Eric Clayberg Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/29 Message-ID: <32EF97EC.755C@parcplace.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 213076163 references: <5buodl$bci@boursy.news.erols.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: ParcPlace-Digitalk, Inc. mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: clayberg@parcplace.com newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) Date: 1997-01-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jon S Anthony wrote: > > In article <32ED2448.685A@parcplace.com> Eric Clayberg writes: > > > 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 > > Well, clearly from the messages, the most likely description for "who" > here is "someone familiar with strong type systems - static or > otherwise". The Smalltalk aspect seems irrelevant. It seemed relevant since David explicitly mentioned it in his comment. In fact, since the claims seemed to be quite intuitive to the folks familiar with static type systems *and* Smalltalk, I was left to conclude that they were only counterintuitive to those who were familiar with static type systems who were *not* familiar with Smalltalk. > The claim is not that ST isn't less reliable or that it is somehow > impossible to make a program in ST as reliable as a statically checked > strongly typed example. Good. Several folks seemed to have adopted that position. I only entered this discussion to begin with based on comments to the effect that Smalltalk was not a reliable language due to its lack of static typing. > Is this "proof" that such statically analyzed systems are always more > reliable? Of course not. Is it hard evidence from many controlled > experiments checking and confirming that they are? Well, hardly. I couldn't agree more. > However, it _is_ evidence for the claim that "all things being equal" > (which they seldom are), statically checked, strongly typed systems > will exhibit fewer runtime errors than those which aren't. Well, since, as you point out, all things are seldom equal, it is only evidence that "statically checked, strongly typed systems will exhibit fewer *type-related* runtime errors than those which aren't". It says nothing about fewer errors overall or about the ultimate reliability of the delivered systems. > And neither have you. So? Since I have only been arguing *against* the negative (i.e., "Smalltalk is less reliable"), the burden of proof was on the other side. That proof has not been forthcoming. And, as you so clearly point out, such "proof" is virtually impossible to obtain anyway. > > as Smalltalk, my experience (and that of many of the folks contributing > > to this discussion) is that the Smalltalk-based systems are usually much > > more reliable in practice. > > Yawn - just some more unsubstantiated anecdotal claims. Which is why I was very careful to include the phrase "my experience" and not try and argue that this constituted any sort of proof. I can no more prove that Smalltalk-based systems are more reliable than anyone else can prove that they're not. -Eric