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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,6cd90863b65ff36b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newspeer1.stngva01.us.to.verio.net!verio!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!oleane.net!oleane!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP and memory management Date: 19 Aug 2004 21:27:25 -0400 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <40f3ceee@alpha.wvnet.edu> <19iip59qsl122$.3g3hicltra17.dlg@40tude.net> <40f5bbe1@alpha.wvnet.edu> <40f67c13@alpha.wvnet.edu> <9qTRc.61502$M95.25853@pd7tw1no> <411C5D2F.5070408@acm.org> <3bOUc.46253$US4.14922@trndny01> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1092965262 44836 212.85.156.195 (20 Aug 2004 01:27:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 01:27:42 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2881 Date: 2004-08-19T21:27:25-04:00 "Thomas G. Marshall" writes: > > > 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