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>
From: jayessay <nospam@foo.com>
Organization: Tangible
Date: 06 Sep 2004 12:39:42 -0400
Message-ID: <m3wtz7e4hd.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=Oid[`P]N`0;g3_46:4>1e00R]m=BkYWI7:6bU3OT9S9:oBImG[Uf_I8LjhDjIjS^>1[g\aJk;3HK>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3388
Date: 2004-09-06T12:39:42-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

kevin.cline@gmail.com (Kevin Cline) writes:

> Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message
> > "Richard  Riehle" <adaworks@earthlink.net> writes:
> > 
> > > No one argues that testing is unimportant.
> >  
> > > No language can protect us, at compile time, from every possible
> > > error.
> > 
> > But assuming perfect testing, finding the errors during compilation
> > rather than in testing saves me time, and time is money.
> 
> 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.

/Jon

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