Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!howland.erols.net!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!uucp4.uu.net!alexandria.organon.com!alexandria!jsa
From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)
Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better!
In-Reply-To: Alan Lovejoy's message of Mon, 03 Feb 1997 16:48:57 -0800
Message-ID: <JSA.97Feb4160030@alexandria>
Sender: news@organon.com (news)
Organization: Organon Motives, Inc.
References: <JSA.97Jan16141937@alexandria> <E44u82.6uB@syd.csa.com.au>
	<mheaney-ya023280001601972303180001@news.ni.net>
	<32DF458F.4D5C@concentric.net> <32DF94DC.6FF8@watson.ibm.com>
	<32DFD972.37E4@concentric.net> <5bphq4$5js@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
	<32E05FAF.47BA@concentric.net> <5buodl$bci@boursy.news.erols.com>
	<32E2FEC7.2F7B@concentric.net> <5bvncj$gqg$1@A-abe.resnet.ucsb.edu>
	<32E47B4B.56D9@concentric.net> <5c4fr0$27j@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
	<32E67751.4AFC@parcplace.com> <5caqo5$k5l@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <32E
	<5ce8t3$6gv@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <32EEC23E.4F1A@concentric.net>
	<5cmv1v$13b@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <32F07418.29FC@concentric.net>
	<JSA.97Jan30214043@alexandria> <32F3A0A5.7394@concentric.net>
	<JSA.97Feb3175254@alexandria> <32F68779.661F@concentric.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 21:00:30 GMT
Lines: 57
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:245581 comp.lang.smalltalk:50935 comp.lang.eiffel:18191 comp.lang.ada:57167 comp.object:60824

In article <32F68779.661F@concentric.net> Alan Lovejoy <alovejoy@concentric.net> writes:

> You assume that dynamic/static typing is an independent variable.  I claim
> it is not.  Specifically, the extra flexibility, polymorphism, genericity and
> reusability of dynamically-typed code can have important effects on many
> other aspects of development that are important with respect to error rates,
> ease of maintenance/debugging, fault tolerance, testability, productivity...
> and these in turn affect each other.  It's a non-linear dynamic system.

OK. But no one has offered any reasons or explication for why 1) this
is plausible or 2) that it _lowers_ error rates or 3) direct analogs
in statically checked systems don't have basically the same effect
(one way or the other wrt runtime error rates).


> > ... Second, _of course_ a dynamically checked language _isn't_ "too unsafe" for such use without considering other aspects/tradeoffs.  But those other
> > aspects will likely not have a lot to do with runtime error rates.
> 
> Why not?

Because 1) no one has offered any evidence whatsoever for it, 2) I
myself can't think of any plausible let alone convincing evidence
either, and 3) IME, they have not (or more precisely, the probable
_increase_ in runtime error rates was the _price_ traded off _against_
certain other desirable aspects.)  That's why.


> > Actually, I don't particularly care because I _do_ have a good idea of
> > what they can do and where/why they would be the _clear_ choice over
> > statically checked ones.  But it hasn't much to do with error rates.

> Well, some of the participants in this thread have made it clear that
> a) they don't know what the capabilities of dynamic languages are, and
> b) they have immense concern that using a dynamic language would lead
> to signficant and unacceptable increases in the rates at which runtime
> errors would occur.

Well, that is a problem.  We have "all" faced it.  There's not much
you can say or do when confronted with someone revelling in ignorance...


> I am glad that you know the power of dynamic languages, and that
> you don't consider error rates to have much to do with the issue of
> when to use a dynamic language.  Others, however, are not so
> enlightened.

Thanks for recognizing my recognition! :-)


/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com

