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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no 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 06:50:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is strong typing worth the cost? Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:00:53 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <9gBz8.4054$%r1.2380315867@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1020193255 16487 136.170.200.133 (30 Apr 2002 19:00:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Apr 2002 19:00:55 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23337 Date: 2002-04-30T19:00:55+00:00 List-Id: There does tend to be a "Put the burden of proof on Ada" kind of attitude that often comes into play. It may not be entirely unfair in that someone can say "This is what I do now. You propose that I do something different and claim it is better. Can you demonstrate how this is better?" OTOH, there actually *is* some half-way scientific evidence that Ada *does* do things better when taken overall. (Its difficult to isolate just one feature of Ada and say "Demonstrate that just this feature is better." We do have studies that tend to indicate that The Ada Way, taken as a whole, results in higher productivity and lower defects.) There is no scientific evidence I am aware of that somehow weak typing, lack of runtime checks, "concise" syntax or other features that are contrary to the Ada philosophy (The AntiAda Way?) improve productivity or reduce defects over development in Ada or other more rigorous languages. So we might say, "There is no rigorous, *scientific* proof of the superiority of either strategy. Do we have any unscientific evidence or logical reasoning or anectdotal evidence or other factors to prefer the strong typing model of Ada?" I think there is quite a bit of that sort of thing to demonstrate that for non-trivial applications, you get better results with Ada's philosophy than with other philosophies. (With the standard disclaimer: "All Other Things Being Equal" :-) Now the ball can go over to the other court: Can this be demonstrated with science to be false? MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com wrote in message news:9gBz8.4054$%r1.2380315867@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... > > Where is the evidence of a worthwhile cost/benefit > > for strong typing? > Let's rephrase that: Where is the evidence that strong typing > is not worth the cost? As a matter of fact, what does it cost? > I suggest the cost is zero, in which case even the most minor of > benefits would make the benefit/cost = infinity. >