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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	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: 2002-05-01 01:36:31 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!195.25.12.36!oleane.net!oleane!freenix!wanadoo.fr!not-for-mail
From: Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is strong typing worth the cost?
Date: 01 May 2002 10:36:29 +0200
Organization: Home - http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
Message-ID: <uwuuouuwi.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
References: <Xns91FEB85DCA09Cderekknosofcouk@62.253.162.108>
 <4519e058.0204290722.2189008@posting.google.com>
 <Xns91FFC7B971B88derekknosofcouk@194.168.222.64>
 <3CCE8523.6F2E721C@earthlink.net>
 <Xns9200929868B11derekknosofcouk@62.253.162.107>
 <3CCEB246.9090009@worldnet.att.net>
 <Xns9200B524E1781derekknosofcouk@62.253.162.109>
 <slrnactqh7.2qr.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <slrnacts3r.2qr.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <aamua0$hnd$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: avelizy-103-1-3-139.abo.wanadoo.fr
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: wanadoo.fr 1020242190 1325 217.128.47.139 (1 May 2002 08:36:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@wanadoo.fr
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 May 2002 08:36:30 GMT
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23320
Date: 2002-05-01T08:36:30+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> writes:

> In fairness, I think that the problem is a little different than just
> finding examples of where strong typing reduces bugs. I think all of us here
> have seen numerous examples where strong type checking had caught things
> that are potentially really nasty, hard to find bugs. The question seems to
> be "...But is there any scientific evidence that strong type checking buys
> back more than it costs?"

This is always hard to prove... But look at Preben example, the second version
of the program is no more complex than the first one. Both are so similar than
they certainly cost the same at the development step. But the second will
catch the error and will avoid a debug session which cost more than writing
the piece of code in the example ! As you say we all have lot of example like
this... This is no proof, we don't have resources to play the game of writing
a software in two different languages and compare the results...

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--|
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"