Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news4.ner.bbnplanet.net!news3.near.net!paperboy.wellfleet.com!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!brockman
From: brockman@netcom.com (daniel brockman)
Subject: Re: Why is one OO language more productive than another?
Message-ID: <brockmanDE7v22.26A@netcom.com>
Organization: Life, Liberty, Love, Money and Art
References: <41aal8$46ig@tigger.cc.uic.edu> <26dvkr$02j@zoe.pcix.com> <41d43j$1h20@tigger.cc.uic.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 07:49:13 GMT
Lines: 23
Sender: brockman@netcom13.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:37780 comp.lang.eiffel:10707 comp.lang.c++:147062 comp.lang.smalltalk:27886

In article <41d43j$1h20@tigger.cc.uic.edu> dhanley@okeeffe (David Hanley) writes:
>: Now, in the situation where the code is being developed by a large
>: team and there is a lot of communcation between the various
>: software components, much of the data has to be defined early.
>: Actually, a lot of standards and conventions must be defined.
>
>	It is precisely on such ( larger ) projects, or projects that
>must be maintained over time by many people, that I feel static typing
>is a big win.

Communication among the humans on the large team matters more, imho, 
than the communication among the softwarre components.
 
Big coercion can nullify the technical big win of static typing.
Overenthusiastic typing can cause the overlooking of alternative
strategems.  Discretion is more valuable than iron rules.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Brockman San Francisco brockman@netcom.com 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
