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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: knight@acm.org (Alan Knight) Subject: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing again (was Re: OO, C++, and something much better!) Date: 1997/01/28 Message-ID: <5clom9$3io$2@newsfeed.ftn.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212915888 references: <32DF458F.4D5C@concentric.net> <32DF94DC.6FF8@watson.ibm.com> <32DFD972.37E4@concentric.net> <32E4FC5B.242C@watson.ibm.com> <32E6862D.608B@parcplace.com> <32E764D0.23D9@calfp.com> organization: The Object People newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object Date: 1997-01-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <32E764D0.23D9@calfp.com>, Richie Bielak wrote: >The short answer to you comment is: > > "Testing only proves existence of errors, not their absence" > >but static typing _proves_ absence of certain kinds of errors. .. which is why all production systems should be using formal verification techniques to prove their programs correct. After all, provable correctness, no matter what the cost, is the ultimate goal, right? -- Alan Knight | The Object People knight@acm.org | Your Smalltalk Experts 613.225.8812(v) 613.225.5943(f) | http://www.objectpeople.com "That does not mean we should give up reading nineteenth-century novels, we should read them avidly and often. What we must do is give up writing them" - Jeanette Winterson