Static vs Dynamic binding and its effect on maintenance of software

Static vs Dynamic binding and its effect on maintenance of software

[Nasser Abbasi]

From "Object-Oriented programming and Java",  ISBN 981-308-396-4

I am posting this on Ada group for comments, since Ada is well known for its 
static binding more than any other language I know.

"Static binding is limited and may lead to difficulty in software 
maintenance. Dynamic binding, on the other hand, provides design flexibility 
and may enhance software maintainability"

Here is a screen shot of the page where the above was taken
http://12000.org/tmp/010109/static_binding.png

I understand how dynamic binding can be more 'flexible', but why static 
binding "may lead to difficulty in software maintenance" ? I do not 
understand the rational behind this.

I would have thought than dynamic binding would do that more than static 
binding?

--Nasser

Re: Static vs Dynamic binding and its effect on maintenance of software

[Colin Paul Gloster]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009, Nasser Abbasi wrote:

|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"From "Object-Oriented programming and Java",  ISBN 981-308-396-4            |
|                                                                             |
|I am posting this on Ada group for comments, since Ada is well known for its |
|static binding more than any other language I know.                          |
|                                                                             |
|"Static binding is limited and may lead to difficulty in software            |
|maintenance. Dynamic binding, on the other hand, provides design flexibility |
|and may enhance software maintainability"                                    |
|                                                                             |
|Here is a screen shot of the page where the above was taken                  |
|http://12000.org/tmp/010109/static_binding.png                               |
|                                                                             |
|I understand how dynamic binding can be more 'flexible', but why static      |
|binding "may lead to difficulty in software maintenance" ? I do not          |
|understand the rational behind this.                                         |
|                                                                             |
|I would have thought than dynamic binding would do that more than static     |
|binding?"                                                                    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

I agree that static binding is better.

Re: Static vs Dynamic binding and its effect on maintenance of software

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 03:41:15 -0800, Nasser Abbasi wrote:

> From "Object-Oriented programming and Java",  ISBN 981-308-396-4
> 
> I am posting this on Ada group for comments, since Ada is well known for its 
> static binding more than any other language I know.
> 
> "Static binding is limited and may lead to difficulty in software 
> maintenance. Dynamic binding, on the other hand, provides design flexibility 
> and may enhance software maintainability"
> 
> Here is a screen shot of the page where the above was taken
> http://12000.org/tmp/010109/static_binding.png
> 
> I understand how dynamic binding can be more 'flexible', but why static 
> binding "may lead to difficulty in software maintenance" ? I do not 
> understand the rational behind this.
> 
> I would have thought than dynamic binding would do that more than static 
> binding?

(Usual popcorn, I gather. Why do you start the new year reading this? (:-)) 

Without specifying what is bound to what it is meaningless to talk about
it. Anyway the key issue is not the time of binding, but the behavior of.
Precisely if late binding may fail.

When it cannot, then it is static, in the sense that there anyway exists
some naming schema, call it as you wish, checked statically. If it can
fail, then technically there are two further possibilities. Either you add
an exception propagation or other fallback *static binding*, which brings
you into back to the starting position. Or else you stop the program and
pop the debugger up. The latter, I mean, running the debugger is probably
author's understanding of software maintenance...

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Static vs Dynamic binding and its effect on maintenance of software

[hesobreira]

On Jan 1, 12:41 pm, "Nasser Abbasi" <n...@12000.org> wrote:
> From "Object-Oriented programming and Java",  ISBN 981-308-396-4
>
> I am posting this on Ada group for comments, since Ada is well known for its
> static binding more than any other language I know.

Really? Ada allows dynamic binding as well via 'Class attribute.

>
> "Static binding is limited and may lead to difficulty in software
> maintenance. Dynamic binding, on the other hand, provides design flexibility
> and may enhance software maintainability"

One can say that software that is adaptable to changes is maintainable
in the sense that you don't have to change implemented code, just
write the necessary part that handles the change, for example due to a
new requirement.

Hugo