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: 2002-05-06 09:37:28 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!paloalto-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: <3CD6B140.437B459C@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> <3CD15FAE.6DEE0AD@despammed.com> <3CD16B60.93078396@san.rr.com> <3CD1B496.DBE8ADC4@san.rr.com> <3CD1BACC.8938FEAB@despammed.com> <3CD1D17B.F60DCB89@san.rr.com> <3CD2A86C.85B4CF8@despammed.com> <3CD2B5E5.3203E48F@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 11:37:20 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.168.144.162 X-Complaints-To: news@ext.ray.com X-Trace: dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com 1020703047 151.168.144.162 (Mon, 06 May 2002 11:37:27 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 11:37:27 CDT Organization: Raytheon Company Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23593 Date: 2002-05-06T11:37:20-05:00 List-Id: > You've still implemented the stub. To run the test, you still have to > code the declaration of the subprogram and you still have to code the > body of the subprogram. The body doesn't have to be *right*, but it > still has to be coded. I must be missing something. Why do you want to run a test when the item being tested doesn't exist? > count "won't compile" as a failed test, but since XP uses Smalltalk and I avoided saying it until you brought it up, but in the limited reading on XP that I've done. it continues to look like a methodology designed to promote Smalltalk and to not work with anything else. If "extreme programming IS Smalltalk" why fault Ada for not "fitting in" ? > > Why not make a hundred copies of the program each cycle, > > make random changes, and keep the few that look promising? > > Genetic algorithm--sort of. > > Well, you could, but it wouldn't be XP. Sounds like it would be a faster version of the same thing. > I'm not trying to say XP is superior to the normal mechanisms used by > Ada. I'm just saying that *if* you're doing XP, doing it with something > like Smalltalk is better than doing it with something like Ada, in part > because of the strictness of Ada's type system that requires extra work > to make things compile/link and extra redundancy that assures the > compiler you mean what you said. Since XP and Smalltalk seem to be in a chicken and egg cycle, I think "Is Ada bad for XP?" is not a very useful question. A better question would be, "For a particular application domain, does using Smalltalk with XP or Ada with its 'best practices' produce better code sooner?" -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau