Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP and memory management

[Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@acm.org>]

"Thomas G. Marshall" <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> writes:

> <snip description of complex GUI / instrument system>
> 
> Because it was done in Java, a statically typed language, there was a great
> deal of energy spent in just turning the crank of making sure that the types
> shifted from prior strategy to the current one.  I hope I've been clear
> enough here.

I gather you believe it would have been easier to do this redesign in
some other language? What language, and why?

If I had done the same thing in Ada (and I have done similar redesigns
(I call it "refactoring")), I would expect to "turn the crank" to get
all the types right. That's part of what static typing is for; the
compiler lets you know where stuff has to be changed. But at each
point, you need to make sure that nothing _else_ needs to be changed;
often it does.

So I don't see why you feel "turning the crank" is a Bad Thing here.

-- 
-- Stephe