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> <413e2fbd$0$30586$626a14ce@news.free.fr> <4140b5cc$0$17701$626a14ce@news.free.fr> From: jayessay Organization: Tangible Date: 12 Sep 2004 12:30:27 -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=aZiG5MlVmD[BSY?2J= kevin.cline@gmail.com (Kevin Cline) writes: > Explicit static typing ala Ada and C++ definitely has a cost, because > it makes the code longer, and also makes it more brittle. The truth of this is really really hard to over emphasize. > Often I don't really care what type a variable has as long as it is > the same type as the value it takes. But with explicit typing a > simple type change can ripple through the application forcing the > change of many other functions. Simply changing the return type of > a commonly used function from single precision to double precision > may require every call of that function to be changed. That takes > time that could be better spent on higher level pursuits. Good description of a serious problem with static typing. > Besides the additional time to write all those declarations and keep > them synchronized with the bodies and keep all the callers > synchronized, there is the time lost waiting for compilation and > linking, and worse the loss in concentration when developers go off > surfing the web waiting for the compile to finish. More very good points. Productivity, as well as robustness and _usefulness_ of the result, generally (in my experience) skyrockets after moving to dynamic systems and agile methods. > > Anyway, I enter in this thread because of the claim that typing has much > > less value than test-first. It is _static_ typing that has much less value, not typing! > > I still wait for any illustration of this claim. > > > > (and I feel that I will wait for a long time) > > I don't think you will wait all that long. Test-first development is > no longer a radical idea. Increasing numbers of serious software > development shops, like SABRE, are getting good results from > test-first development. Agreed. /Jon -- 'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com