Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP and memory management

["Richard Riehle" <adaworks@earthlink.net>]

"Thomas G. Marshall" <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:moWUc.5028$de4.548@trndny07...
> Richard Riehle <adaworks@earthlink.net> coughed up the following:
> > "Thomas G. Marshall"
>
> When the number of such continually active gui components threatened to
> exceed several hundred, we shifted the model and from the top converted
> every single component into an entry into something called the Dispatch.
> Dispatch maintained a list(1) of lists(2) of components.  Each list(2) was
a
> list of components that needed updating a particular interval.  All the
50ms
> updates went into one such list.  All slower 150ms updates went into
> another, etc.  23 distinct interval types meant 23 entries in list(1),
each
> of which a list(2) of components.
>
> Because it was done in Java, a statically typed language, there was a
great
> deal of energy spent in just turning the crank of making sure that the
types
> shifted from prior strategy to the current one.  I hope I've been clear
> enough here.
>
Yes, you are clear.  I see that, with Java, and the approach to design
you describe, you could get annoyed with the static typing, the length
of time to change things, and the difficulty of finding the exact problem
in each case.    I also see that, with Ada, designing the types in well
formed packages and separating the visible part of a type from its
structure (i.e., the name of the type from how it is defined), this
problem is largely non-existent.

Thanks.

Richard Riehle