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: 2002-04-30 17:31:45 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!212.74.64.35!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!peernews!peer.cwci.net!news4-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news6-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is strong typing worth the cost? From: dmjones References: Organization: Knowledge Software Message-ID: User-Agent: Xnews/L5 Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 00:31:44 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.252.22.178 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news6-win.server.ntlworld.com 1020213104 62.252.22.178 (Wed, 01 May 2002 01:31:44 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 01:31:44 BST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23305 Date: 2002-05-01T00:31:44+00:00 List-Id: All, To summarise, no new research investigating the cost/benefit of using strong typing has come to light. There was a suggestion that a John McCormick might be able to provide some pointers. I have contacted him and he does not know of any such published research. On the basis that somebody reading this group might be interested in carrying out some research, or perhaps funding it (I have other fish to fry and am not after funds to do it) lets move on. I have tried to summarise peoples points. Please say if I have misrepresented you. Jeffrey Carter: Only recommend strong typing if evidence in favour of it? Otherwise recommend use of weak typing? Me: I am dealing with developers who use a weakly typed language. To change existing practice I need evidence that it is worthwhile. The default is weak, I am not recommending anything unless I have evidence one way or the other. The language is C. So called 'safe' subsets are typically created by removing 'dangerous' constructs. Please don't ask me to define a 'safe' subset, or what a 'dangerous' construct is. I don't know. Anyway, my interest is more economics based, reducing the cost of software ownership. Rather than subseting, why not add to the language; stronger typing is the candidate? Yes, I know that adding stronger typing to C is not a sensible thing to do for all sorts of reasons. I am looking for an incremental change in developer usage (a separate tool [modified gcc or commercial product, the tool is not the issue] to enforce the checks, then compile with existing compiler). Being evangelical about using another language is not where I am coming from. Marc Criley: Can strong typing be separated from the host language? Me: Probably not 100%. Is 90% possible? Who knows. Experience has taught me (Pascal based commercial applications in the 80's, accounts packages, simple process control, simple database applications, etc), that developers can quiet easily write code using only integer & real + arrays of those types. It's no good turning our noses up at such code. Unless developers are given good training, incentives to use what they have learnt, and time to perfect their skills, so called 'well written' code will not get written. I am not interested in detailed language issues. I want a study, with independent duplication, showing use of string typing has a cost/benefit of X%. Where X is suitably impressive. Frank Bearcd, tmoran: Safe & correct is everything. Me: Making a profit is everything. Neither statement is true. Readers will have no trouble thinking of bug ridden products that make their owners a fortune. I know of products that have been shown to have a high degree of correctness that have lost money and caused their developers to go bust. I see strong typing as a tool for cost reduction in acheiving a specified level of software reliability. Nothing more. Jim Rogers: What are the parameters of cost? Me: Money. Developers time (original development, subsequent maintenance), lost business opportunities being late to market (finding staff with necessary skills, additional lead time in getting it 'more right'). Plus lots of other things.