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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!01cc3b7c!not-for-mail Reply-To: "Richard Riehle" From: "Richard Riehle" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com> <6F2Yc.848$8d1.621@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 16:13:02 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.81.217.204 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1094400782 66.81.217.204 (Sun, 05 Sep 2004 09:13:02 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 09:13:02 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3339 Date: 2004-09-05T16:13:02+00:00 List-Id: "Kevin Cline" wrote in message news:e749549b.0409042036.5d4822a2@posting.google.com... > jayessay wrote in message news:... > > "Richard Riehle" writes: > > ... > > > Ada and Eiffel are designed with more compile-time checking capabilities > > > than Smalltalk. > > > > Static typing is largely overrated - even Hindley-Milner type systems > > such as in Haskell or ML (which are significantly more potent than the > > type systems of Eiffel or Ada). The whole thing sounds great in > > theory and you can make some pretty plausible arguments for its > > efficacy, but it just doesn't make much difference in practice. > > I've come to the same conclusion. Once you decide to test code before > you write it, strong typing loses most of it's value. On the other > hand, if I'm working on code without a good set of automated tests, > then strong typing is a very nice thing to have. > No one argues that testing is unimportant. However, testing is not sufficient in the creation of dependable large-scale software systems. We test for the expected, and design for the unexpected. We can test for the errors we anticipate, but must design for those we cannot anticipate. This is an essential idea in creating software with Ada. Static typing is only one aspect of design. In Ada, types have proven over and over their value when used in conjuction with the other design features of the language, including such things as the visibility rules, accessibility rules, and named association. Ada goes well beyond compile-time type checking. In fact, if it were nothing more than another language based solely on type checking, much of this criticism would be justified. Happily, it is a far more comprehensive software design language than seems evident from some of the criticism, so far. No language can protect us, at compile time, from every possible error. No tool can prevent us from every kind of mistake, whether it is a software tool or hardware tool. But some kinds of tools can reduce the number of mistakes we make. Does it not seem reasonable to use those tools when they make economic sense. The type model, the visibility rules, the named association rules, separate compilation units, the ability to truly encapsulate the structure of types while making them usable, the restrictions on pointers, the compiler checked generic instantiations, and the many other aspects of Ada that can be evaluated by the compiler simply help to improve the life of the programmer, the designer, and the quality of the final product. This capability, when combined with testing, allows us to build the kind of software our customers should expect. We certainly can use these features incorrectly. However, when used properly, Ada gives the designer a better set of options for dependable software creation than its nearest competitors. Richard Riehle