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!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Sender: jsa@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com 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> <87eklg62x8.fsf@news.bourguet.org> <878ybnmdzi.fsf@news.bourguet.org> From: jayessay Organization: Tangible Date: 07 Sep 2004 11:22:00 -0400 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: DXC=JgR93P3b3M^U87o=[e]Yb\0R]m=BkYWIW:6bU3OT9S9ZXBbeQGUQ43Z^aM2i8keRm]NZgTLRVQ;8R X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3435 Date: 2004-09-07T11:22:00-04:00 List-Id: Jean-Marc Bourguet writes: > jayessay writes: > > > Jean-Marc Bourguet writes: > > > > > kevin.cline@gmail.com (Kevin Cline) writes: > > > > > > > Once you decide to test code before you write it, strong > > > > typing loses most of it's value. > > > > > > Well, I've been told that the earlier you detect an error, > > > the easier and the cheaper it was to fix it. > > > > Absolutely. > > > > > > > Errors detected by strong type checking are found earlier than > > > those detected by testing. > > > > Not if the testing is the sort used in bottom-up dynamic incremental > > development. > > That's perhaps one difference between us: I do mainly > maintenance and development of small features in an existing > multi-million lines program whose development started more > than 15 years ago with complex interactions between the > components of the program (some inherent to the problem, > some due to lack of forsightness 10 years ago, some due to > bad practice...) > > It has a lisp dialect as extension language and one of the > maintenance problem is that some part has been written in it > with "bottom-up dynamic incremental development" testing > only the cases the developper was thinking about and fail > sometimes horribly when faced to the customer interaction. The problem here is that this application has tried to hack up some lame version of half of Lisp, i.e., it is an example of Greenspun's tenth. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. > I'm sorry, tests check *other things* than type constaints, > *not* more things. Not the sort I'm talking about using the techniques described. > Tests can only proove that something happen, never that it doesn't. Proving things above the fairly simple level in software falls victim to the halting problem. The specifications (even very good ones) are typically not rigorous enough to _prove_ any conformance either. There are, of course, exceptions. I'm not tring to convince anyone to use dynamic typing and languages here. I'm just trying to ensure that lurkers and others here are getting some goofy incorrect view of what they are and how they work. /Jon -- 'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com