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: <9snhizowcwg9.16smaxkxhyu67$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <mailman.3.1094672731.390.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
From: jayessay <nospam@foo.com>
Organization: Tangible
Date: 09 Sep 2004 20:53:37 -0400
Message-ID: <m3oekf9c6m.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
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==`nZ]]c>=I0nj67=4fdll00R]m=BkYWI7:6bU3OT9S9:=M6JT0^P`=6^aM2i8keRm=]mkK60<J735
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3550
Date: 2004-09-09T20:53:37-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Alexander E. Kopilovich" <aek@VB1162.spb.edu> writes:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
> > On 08 Sep 2004 10:52:05 +0200, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>> "LD" == Lionel Draghi <Lionel.nospam.Draghi@Ada-France.org> writes:
> > > ...
> > >     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

I submit that for good or ill (I believe good) the Common Lisp type
system is an example of this sort of characterization.

http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/04_.htm


/Jon

-- 
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com