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 14:47:33 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!iad-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is strong typing worth the cost?
Date: 1 May 2002 16:46:07 -0500
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <yXSCImx5VQOA@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <Xns91FEB85DCA09Cderekknosofcouk@62.253.162.108>
 <Xns9201F90F50C5derekknosofcouk@62.253.162.108>
 <82347202.0205010735.1d1a66c3@posting.google.com>
 <Xns9201C885373ADderekknosofcouk@194.168.222.64>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1020289569 1002 192.135.80.34 (1 May 2002
 21:46:09 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 21:46:09 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23370
Date: 2002-05-01T16:46:07-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <Xns9201C885373ADderekknosofcouk@194.168.222.64>, dmjones <derek@NOSPAMknosof.co.uk> writes:

> Strong typing requires me to pay more attention to 100% of the
> source I write.  By pay attention I mean I have to get it through
> the compiler (the compiler will pick me up on type errors that I will
> have to invest time in fixing).  Using a weakly typed language does
> not require me to invest so much time up front.

I think of it as the compiler locating errors I would not even hear
about until unit test, system test, field test or production use.

> Usage of my program, by customers, will not result in all
> statements being executed.  Say 70-80% are not executed (I can dig up
> some papers on this).
> 
> Knowing this my management has instituted an 'only test what the
> initial customers are likely to use' policy (of course if they really

The idea that one can predict usage patterns is a great leap of faith,
and defect removal is ten times more expensive after the fact.