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: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dennison@telepath.com
Subject: Re: Software landmines (was: Why C++ is successful)
Date: 1998/08/28
Message-ID: <6s6h4a$ha9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 385633715
References: <6rnh8p$dno$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <6rs6is$6ck$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <m3iujetijb.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Aug 28 15:07:53 1998 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.05 [en] (WinNT; I)
Date: 1998-08-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <m3iujetijb.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>,
  Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:
> dennison@telepath.com writes:
>
> > This whole line of reasoning makes me very uncomfortable, as it has a
> > striking similarity to the arguments I used to hear against
> > strong-typing. After all, a disciplined software engineer won't need
> > strong-typing either, right? It will just get in his way.
>
> No.  Among other things, the purpose of strong typing is to prevent
> accidents, not get in your way.  If a "strongly typed" abstraction is
> difficult to use, then something is wrong with the implementation of the
> abstraction.
>
> Saying that strong typing gets in your way is a little like saying that
> using a speedometer gets in your way, because you can't see how fast the
> wheel is rotating.

My point exactly. Why doesn't this same logic apply to goto's vs. more
structured flow control statements?

--
T.E.D.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum