RE: Is strong typing worth the cost?

[dmjones <derek@NOSPAMknosof.co.uk>]

Pat, Darren,

I appreciate there is more to strong typing than
subtypes of integers.  But including structured types
brings in all sorts of bagage.  If I were doing such
an experiment I would keep it simple.

Besides, many languages are a bit stronger in their
typing of array and structured types, than of their
integer types.

Frank,

> Because then they will have to program in all the necessary
> checking to prevent erroneous results.  The group that uses

Not necessarily.  If I know a particular quantity will vary
between 1..5 I will define such a type.  I know that I then get
this 1..5 assumption checked for me, which is useful.  But would
I go to the effort of putting all those 1..5 checks in by hand?
I doubt it.
 
> How are you going to determine that the unprotected group
> programmed all the necessary checking?  Are you going to
> have some type of code analysis software to check it out?
> This will have a huge impact on downstream maintenance.

Can back this statement up with some evidence?

At the moment I will settle for any references to studies
showing that use of strong typing (not structured types) has
a cost/benefit ratio of less than one.