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>
 <cgpma7$pet$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <slrncj0nmf.hl6.adi@ppc201.mipool.uni-jena.de>
 <cgppvn$t4m$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <6F2Yc.848$8d1.621@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <m3isb2ey3w.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <hMnYc.1759$w%6.1486@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <m3656vfgmf.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <e749549b.0409042036.5d4822a2@posting.googlOrganization: LJK Software
 <vpblkhspuA9F@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <e749549b.0409051449.574ec9ce@posting.google.com>
 <m3wtz7e4hd.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <2L-dnRmP6qOePaLcRVn-ug@megapath.net>
From: jayessay <nospam@foo.com>
Organization: Tangible
Date: 12 Sep 2004 12:22:21 -0400
Message-ID: <m3sm9n8nk2.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=_?jBU>H@kB=Uc?a==OWl]90R]m=BkYWI7:6bU3OT9S9:\2Yl5Mm9A91^aM2i8keRm=7]JVUZ::bn0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3622
Date: 2004-09-12T12:22:21-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> "jayessay" <nospam@foo.com> wrote in message
> news:m3wtz7e4hd.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com...
> > kevin.cline@gmail.com (Kevin Cline) writes:
> ...
> > > I thought so too, until I tried incremental test-first development.
> > > Retesting a unit after adding a few lines of code means that type
> > > mismatches are caught immediately with or without strong typing.  But
> > > it goes faster if you don't have to compile and link every iteration.
> >
> > Exactly.  Actually this sort of development will save you much more
> > time and money than you could ever hope for from typical static typing.
> 
> This seems like complete nonsense to me. (I'll admit that I've read other
> people making similar claims).

Have a look at this:

http://martinfowler.com/articles/newMethodology.html

and I think you will have a somewhat better idea of what this is
about.


/Jon

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