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-Thread: 103376,c406e0c4a6eb74ed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!feeder2-1.proxad.net!news16-e.free.fr!not-for-mail Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:25:20 +0200 From: Lionel Draghi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fr-FR; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040820 Debian/1.7.2-4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, it MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com> <6F2Yc.848$8d1.621@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <413e2fbd$0$30586$626a14ce@news.free.fr> <4140b906$0$29447$636a15ce@news.free.fr> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <4144dadc$0$15567$636a15ce@news.free.fr> Organization: Guest of ProXad - France NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Sep 2004 01:25:16 MEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.64.15.8 X-Trace: 1095031516 news16-e.free.fr 15567 82.64.15.8:39350 X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3640 Date: 2004-09-13T01:25:16+02:00 List-Id: 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