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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 108717,c1d77749223627c8 X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,8802fe2212b159e1 X-Google-Thread: 114809,8802fe2212b159e1 X-Google-Thread: 103376,6cd90863b65ff36b X-Google-Attributes: gid108717,gid1108a1,gid114809,gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!01cc3b7c!not-for-mail Reply-To: "Richard Riehle" From: "Richard Riehle" Newsgroups: comp.programming,comp.object,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada References: <40f3ceee@alpha.wvnet.edu> <19iip59qsl122$.3g3hicltra17.dlg@40tude.net> <40f5bbe1@alpha.wvnet.edu> <40f67c13@alpha.wvnet.edu> <9qTRc.61502$M95.25853@pd7tw1no> <411C5D2F.5070408@acm.org> <3bOUc.46253$US4.14922@trndny01> Subject: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP and memory management X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 07:00:08 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.81.218.11 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1092985208 66.81.218.11 (Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:00:08 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 00:00:08 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.programming:8459 comp.object:5878 comp.lang.smalltalk:2587 comp.lang.ada:2882 Date: 2004-08-20T07:00:08+00:00 List-Id: "Thomas G. Marshall" wrote in message news:moWUc.5028$de4.548@trndny07... > Richard Riehle 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