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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 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 14:49:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.socal.rr.com!cyclone3.kc.rr.com!news3.kc.rr.com!twister.socal.rr.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3CD1B496.DBE8ADC4@san.rr.com> From: Darren New X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; 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> <3CCFD76A.A60BB9A8@flash.net> <3CD0A3B8.7B7C8622@san.rr.com> <3CD15FAE.6DEE0AD@despammed.com> <3CD16B60.93078396@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 21:48:48 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.75.151.160 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.socal.rr.com 1020376128 66.75.151.160 (Thu, 02 May 2002 14:48:48 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 14:48:48 PDT Organization: RoadRunner - West Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23454 Date: 2002-05-02T21:48:48+00:00 List-Id: "Chad R. Meiners" wrote: > > "Darren New" wrote in message > news:3CD16B60.93078396@san.rr.com... > > Well, the original question is "is strong typing good?" I'm just trying > > to point out that it's not really a yes/no question, and the right > > question to ask is "is strong typing good for me?" And then you get to > > define the appropriate meaning for "strong typing". Clearly, if your > > programming environment is based on something like Extreme Programming, > > then strong typing (as the OP seems to define it) is *not* going to be > > beneficial and will probably slow you down at least to half speed if not > > more. > > > > How so? You assert this, but you never offer reasoning to support this > claim. Um.... If you've read about Extreme Programming, it's kind of obvious. If you haven't read about Extreme Programming, it's too much to explain. But take, just as a simple example, the "once and only once" rule, which says that everything should be stated in exactly one place. Ada fails this miserably, on purpose. Ada always has at least *two* declarations for every type, and usually a great deal more. The compile-link-test cycle is bad for XP, in that every time you fix a bug you have to start the program over from the beginning instead of picking up where you found the bug. The inability to compile a program that makes reference to functions you haven't written yet is bad for XP. It means you can't run the test for a new piece of functionality without writing something about that functionality into the code. If you find you have one type that really should have been two types (say, you had a "name" type, and now you decide you want a "maiden name" type and a "current name" type), then you have to touch every place in the code that makes any reference to a name, and update the declaration, even if 90% of the places that a "name" is declared you don't do anything with it except pass it to another routine that takes a "name" as an argument. In the extreme case, if "name" was limited, you still have to touch everyplace in the code that uses a "name" (to change the declaration) even tho the only module that could possibly have an effect on it is in the place where "name" is declared. Now, if you want to know *why* these things would make XP much harder, you'll have to go read about how XP works. If you've already done that and have specific questions, I can try to answer them, but I can't guarantee I'll be able to. -- Darren New San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand. The 90/10 rule of toothpaste: the last 10% of the tube lasts as long as the first 90%.