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 17:18:40 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.uchicago.edu!yellow.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!kibo.news.demon.net!demon!easynet-monga!easynet.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!psiuk-p2!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: Wed, 1 May 2002 09:27:59 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <4519e058.0204290722.2189008@posting.google.com> <3CCE8523.6F2E721C@earthlink.net> <3CCEB246.9090009@worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1020259681 11826 136.170.200.133 (1 May 2002 13:28:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 May 2002 13:28:01 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:23380 Date: 2002-05-01T13:28:01+00:00 List-Id: First off, I can convince myself of the benefit of strong typing and don't really need scientific proof that it is a better way to do business, so I'm not opposed to Preben's example. (Or numerous other possible examples.) I state that because now I'm going to play devil's advocate. :-) The example shown was, of necessity, a very simple case that will *not* illustrate the cost of doing the design needed to properly build a set of types and subtypes for a system of realistic size. If you're approaching a system of some magnitude and plan on utilizing strong typing to the fullest desirable extent, then you've really got to do a lot of analysis and design to actually exploit it. If you *don't* want to use strong typing, then you've just eliminated a bunch of design work - which obviously costs less up front. In fact, you can totally eliminate *any* design and just start coding and save all the cost of analysis and design. ("O.K. You guys get started writing the code while I go talk to the customer and find out what they want..." :-) In general, we convince ourselves that for larger systems, failure to do any up front design costs a lot at the back end in terms of missed requirements, debugging, rework, total failure, etc. I'm not sure that there is any "scientific" evidence we can point to, but certainly a lot of experience that tells us this ought to be "Conventional Wisdom". Properly using strong typing (beyond the inherent checks within the language supplied types) is something that requires you think about the problem, analyze the constraints on everything, devise a set of types and operations that reflect the problem space, etc., etc., etc. Most of us with experience doing this will contend that, yes, it costs something up front but it saves a lot at the back end. (Maybe the biggest benefit comes from the fact that you had to *think* about the problem pretty rigorusly?) But its not totally unfair to ask if there is anything that might demonstrate this with hard data rather than just perceptions and anecdotes. How much evidence one might demand before concluding that it is a wise thing to do is up to the individual. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com "Pascal Obry" wrote in message news:uwuuouuwi.fsf@wanadoo.fr... > > This is always hard to prove... But look at Preben example, the second version > of the program is no more complex than the first one. Both are so similar than > they certainly cost the same at the development step. But the second will > catch the error and will avoid a debug session which cost more than writing > the piece of code in the example ! As you say we all have lot of example like > this... This is no proof, we don't have resources to play the game of writing > a software in two different languages and compare the results... >