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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: 2002-04-30 11:09:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!deine.net!freenix!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Beard, Frank [Contractor]" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Is strong typing worth the cost? Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:08:10 -0400 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1020190142 79875 137.194.161.2 (30 Apr 2002 18:09:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 18:09:02 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23287 Date: 2002-04-30T14:08:10-04:00 From: dmjones [mailto:derek@NOSPAMknosof.co.uk] > Who mentioned safe and correct? This is avoiding the base > issue. Where is the evidence of a worthwhile cost/benefit > for strong typing? If you can't grasp the connection between "safe and correct" and "cost/benefit", then everyone is wasting their time discussing it with you. It is a fundamental key point. I haven't seen any research lately on the benefits of strong typing. Why should there be any, since most of the C/C++ camps, and other loosely typed languages, don't care? That's why you end up with products like Windows that are expected to crash frequently. And they don't care, because they'll just charge you for an upgrade to fix things that shouldn't have been there in the first place. And that's also why you don't see Microsoft products user in life-and-death situations. Does anybody remember the link to the site/agency that forbade C from being used on mission critical or safety critical systems? They had a paper on the site the went into the reasons. Most of them, even if not explicitly stated, where strong typing issues. It's been several years since I read it, and I can't remember where.