Re: Is strong typing worth the cost?

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

I don't think it is an odd thing to do - you're asking a fair question.
There are reasons to suspect that going to the pains of creating lots of
specialized types to distinguish between the data being manipulated is of
benefit to projects in terms of reducing costs, etc. Is there any way of
substantiating it with research?

I think it would be difficult to test - but it might depend on how you
worded the question. If the question is "Suppose I just use the language
provided types with language provided checks, versus a design that
distinguishes the kind of data into their own types and subtypes to avoid
mixing things. Does this improve productivity?" That, you *might* be able to
construct an experiment to test. However, that's a significantly different
thing than comparing a weak-typed language (such as C) to a strongly typed
language, since Ada still provides a lot of checks on its own defined types
that C does not. (Parameter passing or automatic data conversions are good
examples. Checking those things can result in major reductions in errors -
which Ada does and C does not.) So do the results tell you anything
significant?

I sympathize with your desire for scientific study - its just understandable
why there is so little out there to look at.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com


"dmjones" <derek@NOSPAMknosof.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9201A63CA1674derekknosofcouk@62.253.162.105...
>
> Yes, Ada may contain other fine features and separating out the
> type system (for experimentation) from the rest of the language may
> sound like an odd thing to do.  I think the use of strong typing in
> other languages would reduce the cost of software ownership.  If
> you can think of a better way for me to obtain substantiating
> evidence please let me know.