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 12:37:07 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!easynews!news-xfer2.newshosting.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is strong typing worth the cost? From: Dan Andreatta References: Message-ID: User-Agent: Xnews/4.11.09 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.252.151.109 Date: 1 May 2002 13:30:26 -0700 X-Original-Trace: 1 May 2002 13:30:26 -0700, 129.252.151.109 X-COMPLAINTS: Report abuse to abuse@mhogaming.com Organization: Newshosting.com - Highest quality at a great price! www.newshosting.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 488f9d56.news.newshosting.com X-Trace: DXC=>6][:T^ngh1[ZcMRX;YR35X`1N4>^k1L3iF6BbIV4YY2mfkIQ\;j:O<@4n[<1[<\a?Q]gL0o33_A;l5 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. Dan