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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d89b08801f2aacae X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-01 04:51:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr16.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3CCFD76A.A60BB9A8@flash.net> From: Gary Scott Reply-To: scottg@flash.net Organization: Home X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-DIAL (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is strong typing worth the cost? References: <4519e058.0204290722.2189008@posting.google.com> <3CCE8523.6F2E721C@earthlink.net> <3CCEB246.9090009@worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.48.221.72 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr16.news.prodigy.com 1020253818 ST000 64.48.221.72 (Wed, 01 May 2002 07:50:18 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 07:50:18 EDT X-UserInfo1: T[OUQO[@AC[]@FPYBJKBNRLI[B]NQHMIQQ]ZMVMHQAVTUZ]CLNTCPFK[WDXDHV[K^FCGJCJLPF_D_NCC@FUG^Q\DINVAXSLIFXYJSSCCALP@PB@\OS@BITWAH\CQZKJMMD^SJA^NXA\GVLSRBD^M_NW_F[YLVTWIGAXAQBOATKBBQRXECDFDMQ\DZFUE@\JM Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 11:50:18 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23325 Date: 2002-05-01T11:50:18+00:00 List-Id: Pascal Obry wrote: > > "Marin David Condic" writes: > > > In fairness, I think that the problem is a little different than just > > finding examples of where strong typing reduces bugs. I think all of us here > > have seen numerous examples where strong type checking had caught things > > that are potentially really nasty, hard to find bugs. The question seems to > > be "...But is there any scientific evidence that strong type checking buys > > back more than it costs?" > > This is always hard to prove... But look at Preben example, the second version > of the program is no more complex than the first one. Both are so similar than > they certainly cost the same at the development step. But the second will > catch the error and will avoid a debug session which cost more than writing > the piece of code in the example ! As you say we all have lot of example like > this... This is no proof, we don't have resources to play the game of writing > a software in two different languages and compare the results... Even with the resources, you likely won't have equal knowledge in multiple languages in order to do the best possible job in each language. In a great many fields, execution performance is highly important whereas not in others, so you also need to carefully choose the problem you're solving in those multiple languages, possibly designed specifically targeting specific, disparate problem domains. Some languages claim to be "general purpose", but usually those are weak in numerical programming. Those tailored for numerical programming are often weak in "system" programming. So no matter what you do, it probably won't be a fair comparison. > > Pascal. > > -- > > --|------------------------------------------------------ > --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member > --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE > --|------------------------------------------------------ > --| http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry > --| > --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" -- Gary Scott mailto:scottg@flash.net mailto:webmaster@fortranlib.com http://www.fortranlib.com Support the GNU Fortran G95 Project: http://g95.sourceforge.net