Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request

[Lionel Draghi <Lionel.nospam.Draghi@Ada-France.org>]

jayessay wrote:
...
>>>I agree to a good extent with Kevin.  I tend to use test-first,
>>>assertions  (or DbC if available) and static typing to complement
>>>each other.  And  they do.
>>
>>Is it really your opinion, Kevin?
...
>>And you Jon?

> Not exactly, because I don't use much static typing anymore.  It just
> doesn't offer much because it is largely dependent on having all
> requirements set in concrete (which they almost never are).

We have several thousand types comming from norm or standard that are 
perfectly stable. (I am in the communication field).

But anyway that's not important:
1 - lot's of type just come from the design, not directly from 
requirements. So YOU are in charge of defining those.

2 - not having the range or other details is not an excuse no to create 
a specific type, as I illustrated in another mail.

> Have a look at this:
> http://martinfowler.com/articles/newMethodology.html
I will.
...

> 
> Not type usefulness, most everyone agrees types are useful, even
> necessary.  It is _static_ typing that is of questionable usefulness
> in any domain that doesn't have clear, well defined requirements
> (which is to say the vast majority of cases).
Questionable, yes, always.
But we clearly won't agree on the answer, so I suppose it's time for me 
to leave this thread.

-- 
Lionel Draghi