Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request

[jayessay <nospam@foo.com>]

Lionel Draghi <Lionel.nospam.Draghi@Ada-France.org> writes:

> Ed Falis wrote:
> > I agree to a good extent with Kevin.  I tend to use test-first,
> > assertions  (or DbC if available) and static typing to complement
> > each other.  And  they do.
> 
> Is it really your opinion, Kevin?
> If yes, I am pleased to see that we fully agree ;-)
> 
> And you Jon?

Not exactly, because I don't use much static typing anymore.  It just
doesn't offer much because it is largely dependent on having all
requirements set in concrete (which they almost never are).

Have a look at this:

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


I think you and many others in this group will get a lot of insight
from this article.  It is not a perfect description but it has some
advantages for this context:

1. It is written by someone who has been there and done that in both
   the traditional development cycle and some agile methods

2. It is written by someone for whom most people in this group
   probably have at least some respect.


Personally, I think the sort of "agile" method I've been mentioning
here is in many ways analogous to developing a theory in mathematics
than what happens in "engineering".  There is a lot of creative
"noodling" that goes into this buttressed by very high levels of
rigor, with a very bottom up approach where each definition,
proposition, lemma and theorem are incrementally determined and
tightly integrated.  There are of course many differences, but it at
least indicates the very different mind set.


> OK, I suppose it's because of my poor english that I thought you
> where underestimating type usefulness :-)

Not type usefulness, most everyone agrees types are useful, even
necessary.  It is _static_ typing that is of questionable usefulness
in any domain that doesn't have clear, well defined requirements
(which is to say the vast majority of cases).


/Jon

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