Re: Rust's temporal safety for Ada/SPARK

[Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>]

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 5:19:45 PM UTC-6, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> 
> I'm also very suspicious of any claims of new static rules simply because 
> OOP pretty much forces dynamic checks if one uses references; strong typing 
> breaks down for that and everything essentially becomes dynamic. There 
> probably aren't any dereference checks, but you end up with dynamic type 
> checks instead (substantially worse). Best thing is to avoid references 
> altogether (but of course that too reduces capability).
> 
>                                   Randy.

But a lot of those dynamic checks can be eliminated altogether; this paper's 20 years old and shows that up to 87% of indirect [dynamic] calls could be converted to direct [static] calls:
http://dabamirror.sci-hub.io/0907a19f84f6a6fc61cc0416a09a9958/fernndez1995.pdf

Granted, this *IS* at link-time; but a brief look at some of the similar and/or referencing articles gives me the slight [counterintuitive] impression that not everything about OOP need be dynamic. -- It'll take more time and energy to properly delve into the subject than I have at the moment, but some of the results have quite fascinating titles.