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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC,XPRIO autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,695b28bb1b8c553c,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!nlpi057.nbdc.sbc.com!prodigy.net!flph199.ffdc.sbc.com!prodigy.com!flpi107.ffdc.sbc.com!flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com.POSTED!ffbda4aa!not-for-mail Reply-To: "Nasser Abbasi" From: "Nasser Abbasi" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Static vs Dynamic binding and its effect on maintenance of software X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.22.32.102 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com 1230810082 ST000 75.22.32.102 (Thu, 01 Jan 2009 06:41:22 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 06:41:22 EST Organization: at&t http://my.att.net/ X-UserInfo1: [[PAPDCAOPUUS_DS\@^HJFP@AJYZTB\MV@BT]_MIJQR@EPIB_VUKAH_[MTX\IS[K[NGYJJFNOFZR_G[BUNTAOQLFE^TEHRPI]PZZRP_BMDSFQFL_]CBHXRWCMDCUZAZN@D_AKMNLEI]MWHCSXL^]NNC__CZFGSGHYYXWPFG@SCAVA]\FT\@B\RDGENSUQS^M Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 03:41:15 -0800 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3166 Date: 2009-01-01T03:41:15-08:00 List-Id: >From "Object-Oriented programming and Java", ISBN 981-308-396-4 I am posting this on Ada group for comments, since Ada is well known for its static binding more than any other language I know. "Static binding is limited and may lead to difficulty in software maintenance. Dynamic binding, on the other hand, provides design flexibility and may enhance software maintainability" Here is a screen shot of the page where the above was taken http://12000.org/tmp/010109/static_binding.png I understand how dynamic binding can be more 'flexible', but why static binding "may lead to difficulty in software maintenance" ? I do not understand the rational behind this. I would have thought than dynamic binding would do that more than static binding? --Nasser