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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d89b08801f2aacae X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-01 14:50:06 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!easynews!news-xfer2.newshosting.com!news-out.nuthinbutnews.com!propagator-sterling!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!news-in-sterling.newsfeed.com!newsfeed.onecall.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is strong typing worth the cost? Date: 1 May 2002 16:47:42 -0500 Organization: LJK Software Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1020289665 1002 192.135.80.34 (1 May 2002 21:47:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 21:47:45 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23371 Date: 2002-05-01T16:47:42-05:00 List-Id: In article , Dan Andreatta writes: > This reminds me of a test that has been done with a flight simulator, to > check if better instrumentation results in lower problems due to > misjudgments of the pilot. They took two sets of pilots and let them fly > with the simulator. The first group had almost perfect instrumentation, > while the other had a (simulated) less good instrumentation. The result was > that the number of problems that arose were statistically equal. The first > group relied too much on the goodness of the instruments, failing to catch > the eventual errors of the instruments, while the other group double > checked everything. > The only difference were that the first group was less tired after the > flight. Certainly we can agree that tired people make more errors.