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: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: jhd@herold.franken.de (Joachim Durchholz) Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/29 Message-ID: <6PnYCvJV3RB@herold.franken.de>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 213029048 references: <32ED2448.685A@parcplace.com> newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object Date: 1997-01-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Luther wrote: > Rather than going back and forth about the merits of type checking we > should examine whether type mismatching is an important source of errors > in "tested" programs. Well, it's not in statically checked programs, so the hard data for this should come from the Smalltalk community. Unfortunately Smalltalkers don't think in types (at least I didn't get that impression, correct me if I got this wrong), so I fear they aren't prepare to provide such data. Regards, -Joachim -- Joachim Durchholz, Hans-Herold-Str. 25, D-91074 Herzogenaurach, GERMANY