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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/27 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212695656 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1997-01-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <32E9F63A.159D@rase.com> Tansel Ersavas writes: > Norman H. Cohen wrote: > >[...] > > As you rightly point out, there are many errors in some statically typed > languages such as C++ that would be deferred till execution such as > dangling pointers that require sophisticated tools to identify them at > run-time, so just being statically typed is not a guarantee. Of course it is not a gurantee. Who said otherwise? > problem detection tools. These facilities are like extending the > language. And you can never do things in Ada to increase > flexibility dramatically. Why not? "Just" provide an implementation that supports some of the flexibility you get from a "dynamic language". For example, have an interpreter with continually type checked input plus some "type derivation" for easing early phase construction or small constructions. > > Then again, I suppose they wouldn't be in the securities industry if > > they didn't enjoy high-stakes gambles. :-) > > Then again, I suppose that paraniod Ada crippled by these concerns is > mostly used by the defence industry where perceived correctness is > paramount at any price. People can use Ada where the business is killing > the right people, but, thanks, I'll use languages such as Smalltalk and > Self, and I know that I can make them as secure as possible if I want > to. Oh my my my, some prejudices slipping out, eh? Also some preconceived notions. I suppose you don't realize that things like ST and Self are much more the darlings of DoD, than Ada ever was. But who cares? Why should anyone care? Do you ride on airplanes? Use the internet (oops, must, since your message is here)? How about indirect use of satellites? Use computers (oops again)? Benefit from microprocessors? I mean really - can we please have a _little_ bit of clued in discussion instead of these empty headed booby comments??? /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com