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!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 09:57:54 +0200 Organization: cbb-software GmbH Message-ID: <6dnjwusm9266.qvg9alfhmm4k$.dlg@40tude.net> References: <9snhizowcwg9.16smaxkxhyu67$.dlg@40tude.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de zq4UrwJ7YJLuNziKsjo46A4TJTlgNWjw4cM1vPUShP6hMmv28= User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.12.1 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3530 Date: 2004-09-09T09:57:54+02:00 List-Id: On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 23:46:44 +0400 (MSD), Alexander E. Kopilovich wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> On 08 Sep 2004 10:52:05 +0200, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote: >> >>>>>>>> "LD" == Lionel Draghi writes: >>> >>> LD> jayessay wrote: >>> LD> ... >>> >> Exactly. Actually this sort of development will save you much more >>> >> time and money than you could ever hope for from typical static typing. >>> >>> LD> How could this be? >>> LD> With powerful typing you write code. >>> LD> Without, you write as much code and much more tests. >>> >>> You are missing the point. He is not arguing against strong typing, >>> but against *static* typing. >> >> Apparently, but when consistently pursued that kind of argumentation >> inevitable leads to arguing against any typing, especially against ADT. The >> philosophy behind is that types are random artifacts of the program, rather >> than the basis of software design. > > No, the philosophy behind this is that there is no need for type systems to be > always of mainframe kind - comprehensive, complex, requiring distinguished and > rare experts for their creation, future development and general maintenance; > that there can be custom type systems - with lesser scope, that is, not so > universally applicable or useful, but bringing significant advantages in some > particular domains and which really can be succesfully created and controlled > at reasonable (more common and therefore more accessible) level of expertise. Compare it with: there is no need is universal programming languages - comprehensive, complex etc ... write your own every time you get a new contract. Back in 70's people probably believed in that, largely because the languages were undeveloped. 30 years later, why a custom type system cannot be built on the top of a universal one? P.S. Re-read your answer, isn't it against types? Sure? (:-)) P.P.S. Comprehensive etc type system costs nothing when static. Maintenance etc will be compier guys business! (:-)) -- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de