Re: is Java getting close to Ada strong type checking with this tool?

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com>]

Tucker Taft wrote:
> The key difference is that programmers can't communicate
> as much in Java as they can in Ada.  For example, all arrays
> in Java are indexed by integers 0..length-1.  There are many
> applications where this is not the natural index type for the
> array.  Arrays are essentially like functions, and the index
> type should be strongly typed, just like the parameters to a function.
> Not all functions are presumed to take an integer parameter
> ranging from 0..N-1!
> 
> Perhaps even more glaringly is that Java doesn't have enumeration
> types, nor any user-defined scalar types (not even user-defined names
> for the predefined scalar types).  That means that a parameter type is
> often simply "int" when in fact the only legal values are much more
> restricted, and correspond roughly to an enumeration.  There really
> is no reasonable excuse for having omitted enumeration types from
> Java (I have read the "official" rationale about lack of extensibility
> and it is extremely weak in my view).
> 
> Unfortunately, there is no way for an enhanced static checker to
> overcome some of these limitations.  There simply isn't enough
> information.

It was also pointed out in a paper I recently read, that all Java 
methods are dynamic (virtual). This also eliminates some compile 
time (static) checking that otherwise could have been performed.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://members.home.net/ve3wwg