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 14:35:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Gralia, Mars J." Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is strong typing worth the cost? Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 17:34:04 -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 1020202503 86287 137.194.161.2 (30 Apr 2002 21:35:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 21:35:03 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) 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:23298 Date: 2002-04-30T17:34:04-04:00 dmjones asked: > I have been trying to locate evidence that the cost of the use > of strong typing is repaid by a greater benefit. I believe I saw an article exactly like this in the journal Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) perhaps seven (7) years ago. They ran the study by taking something like a dozen college Computer Science folks, inventing two pseudo-languages (with and without strong typing) and let them go at it. Strong typing was better in time-to-produce-a-correct-program. It was slower in time-to-get-a-program-which-cycled. Sorry, but our library doesn't yet have the ACM on-line, so I can't search for it. I did search the IEEE archives and found nothing; I looked in "journals, conference proceedings and standards". I also looked in INSPEC, but was overwhelmed with the number of low-value results. M. Gralia