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!newsfeed.stueberl.de!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!informatik.uni-bremen.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail From: Georg Bauhaus Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 17:15:40 +0000 (UTC) Organization: GMUGHDU Message-ID: References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com> <6F2Yc.848$8d1.621@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <87eklg62x8.fsf@news.bourguet.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1094490940 20090 134.91.1.34 (6 Sep 2004 17:15:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 17:15:40 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00 (9000/800)) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3391 Date: 2004-09-06T17:15:40+00:00 List-Id: jayessay wrote: : Not if the testing is the sort used in bottom-up dynamic incremental : development. There you are often testing both the "type constraints" : _and_ logic at the subexpression level up through clause and finally : to function! This is way earlier and faster than any static type : checking. It is also more robust as it is checking a lot more over a : far greater set of code paths. It isn't surprising that testing checks more than static type checking alone. I don't know, has anybody suggested that static type checking is to be used alone? When you are testing "type constraints", how is that different from a compiler testing type constraints at compile time? What do you mean by robust? If a translator sees a function call, where the function has a specific formal T parameter, and the translator can do type checking before running this piece of the program, doesn't this remove the necessity to test a number of code paths in the first place? In the following sense, if I have: (DEFUN ANY (X) ...) ; old LISP versus function any(x: T) return N; the first notation would leave two additional things that have to be tested by running the piece of program: 1 can "ANY" work with some actual parameter value that happens to be of type S (different from T) at test time? 2 provided 1, can the value returned by "ANY" be used in expression E that expects a value of type N (that is, not of type (Q or S or T or ...))? -- Georg