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: 2002-05-03 16:46:50 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsxfer.visi.net!154.32.99.10.MISMATCH!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: Fri, 3 May 2002 10:27:54 -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> <3CCFD76A.A60BB9A8@flash.net> <3CD0A3B8.7B7C8622@san.rr.com> <3CD15FAE.6DEE0AD@despammed.com> <3CD16B60.93078396@san.rr.com> <3CD1B496.DBE8ADC4@san.rr.com> <3CD1DE85.C00AD2A9@san.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1020436076 23489 136.170.200.133 (3 May 2002 14:27:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 May 2002 14:27:56 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:23521 Date: 2002-05-03T14:27:56+00:00 List-Id: Part of the problem here is that it is not at all clear or obvious that XP is any good for anything at all. Does XP result in faster time to market than some other development process? Maybe. Maybe not. It is not proven AFAIK that following an XP process is going to get you to market sooner. Does it result in more reliable software? Unclear. Does it result in lower overall costs for software? Similarly unclear. It may be well suited to some domains and not to others. Its a development strategy that might have some intellectually satisfying characteristics, but (like strong typing in isolation) it isn't proven to be "The Answer" for any or all development problems. It also is not demonstrated that you can't modify or abandon any individual elements of an XP methodology without destroying any of the benefits it might yield. >From what I've read of XP it seems to be kind of a "religion" that might be really appealing to the "Hacker Mentality" since it deliberately avoids lots of formal stuff that seems to chafe at the free spirits out there. But since XP is really a development process (kind of a variation on the "spiral model" theme) - then like any other process, I don't see why it can't be adapted to suit the demands of an organization. (Unless, of course, one accepts every pronouncement of XP as an article of faith that cannot be denied without commiting an act of heresy. :-) So likewise, I don't see why XP cannot be adapted to programming in Ada, presuming that there is any food-value to be had by doing so to begin with. For example, if some aspect of XP is easy to do with pointers to functions but it is considered some kind of apostasy to use subprogram stubs, then commit the apostasy and use subprogram stubs. (You can usually generate them automatically - or at least pretty quickly). I don't think its at all obvious that this would "destroy" XP or mean that if XP has some benefit that the benefit is lost. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com "Chad R. Meiners" wrote in message news:aaturp$10tn$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu... > You failed to show how strong typing must slow you down in XP. You can > always elect not to define a type or you could define an object type that > you derive all of your types from. You showed how you could slow yourself > down intentionally by using strong typing, but you clearly failed to show > how strong typing in and of itself slows you down in XP. >