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,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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: 2002-05-02 08:48:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!jfk3-feed1.news.algx.net!allegiance!panix!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!bos-service1.ext.raytheon.com!dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3CD15FAE.6DEE0AD@despammed.com> From: Wes Groleau Reply-To: wesgroleau@despammed.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,es-MX,es,pt,fr-CA,fr 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> <3CCFD76A.A60BB9A8@flash.net> <3CD0A3B8.7B7C8622@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 10:47:58 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.168.144.162 X-Complaints-To: news@ext.ray.com X-Trace: dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com 1020354510 151.168.144.162 (Thu, 02 May 2002 10:48:30 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 10:48:30 CDT Organization: Raytheon Company Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23415 Date: 2002-05-02T10:47:58-05:00 List-Id: > long as the end result looks good, it doesn't matter what the code looks > like. It could be the most god-awful mess of spaghetti code and misnamed > uncommented variables you can imagine, and it just doesn't matter. As > soon as the film is out, you're never going to run the program again. That may be true if it's really "run-once" software. But what if you want something you can use again, something more general purpose. So that you can spend a hundred thousand adapting it instead of a million starting over. And what if it costs two million to get it working when if it were readable and/or less buggy, it would have cost one million? Back to the original question, eh? -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau