Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.objective-c
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!utcsri!utmath!ajones
From: ajones@math.toronto.edu (Albin L. Jones)
Subject: Re: Static vs Dynamic Typing: Effects on Productivity?
Message-ID: <1994Sep1.062450.7380@math.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto
References: <33rmtp$7br@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <1994Aug29.195418.26670@midway.uchicago.edu> <33u4ev$ot5@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 94 06:24:50 GMT
Lines: 28
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.smalltalk:16117 comp.lang.objective-c:3010

Just a couple of questions...

Question 1:
Have there ever been any (even semi-serious) studies which
measured the relative productivity of programmers using the
various languages under consideration here?

Question 2:
If Objective C (and late binding/dynamic typing in general) so
so hampers development by creating these errors which 
C++ and Eiffel (and static binding) help to avoid, why is
anybody using Objective C or smalltalk?  And why are they
able to be productive at all?  (I mean, I've never had any
of these `typing' problems some have mentioned; I program
in Objective C, and find it to be a breeze---intuitive, easy to write,
easy to design, easy to debug---not to mention that
the code is some of the easiest to read I've ever seen.
I'm afraid that I find C++ code, for example, to be quite messy. :) )

Thanks.  I hope these questions make sense. ;)

Albin.

-- 
Department of Mathematics          ajones@oxy.edu
University of Toronto     ajones@math.toronto.edu
Toronto, Ontario
Canada  M5S 1A1                    Albin L. Jones
