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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.36.93.70 with SMTP id w67mr4791754ita.37.1494953112480;
        Tue, 16 May 2017 09:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.157.14.91 with SMTP id n27mr275258otd.8.1494953112457; Tue,
 16 May 2017 09:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!67no442421itx.0!news-out.google.com!v18ni421ita.0!nntp.google.com!67no442416itx.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 09:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ofdd2f$juh$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=76.113.92.25;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
NNTP-Posting-Host: 76.113.92.25
References: <cf1c1eb7-61cf-4ee5-8837-d4a95f95a4ba@googlegroups.com>
 <1c0e2c7c-4fd6-43d1-9848-f03e1a72bcb3@googlegroups.com>
 <ofa4dh$15p$1@dont-email.me>
 <ofdd2f$juh$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <40fc8c30-08d6-4456-a488-a1b28615953b@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Rust's temporal safety for Ada/SPARK
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 16:45:12 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:46799
Date: 2017-05-16T09:45:12-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 5:19:45 PM UTC-6, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>=20
> I'm also very suspicious of any claims of new static rules simply because=
=20
> OOP pretty much forces dynamic checks if one uses references; strong typi=
ng=20
> breaks down for that and everything essentially becomes dynamic. There=20
> probably aren't any dereference checks, but you end up with dynamic type=
=20
> checks instead (substantially worse). Best thing is to avoid references=
=20
> altogether (but of course that too reduces capability).
>=20
>                                   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 b=
e 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 an=
d/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 s=
ome of the results have quite fascinating titles.