Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!lfcs!nick From: nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: An Interesting View of "Strong" Vs. "Weak" Typing Keywords: typing, Ada, Lisp, definitions, evidence Message-ID: <1688@castle.ed.ac.uk> Date: 18 Jan 90 11:11:41 GMT References: <1633@castle.ed.ac.uk> <12886@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> Reply-To: nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) Organization: LFCS Enya Admiration Society Lines: 55 In-reply-to: lgm@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (lawrence.g.mayka) In article <12886@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>, lgm@cbnewsc (lawrence.g.mayka) writes: >My basic objection to this scenario is that multiple >modifications, sometimes spanning across the entire system, must >be made simultaneously in order to transition from one stable >system state to the next. True. I've only been involved in projects where the number of programmers was no greater than three. >f) Restricting each identifier to a single predetermined and >(usually) predeclared type, and restricting each function/method >to a predetermined and predeclared number and sequence of >arguments and return values, is fundamentally a bookkeeping >exercise which hinders programmer productivity. I'm not sure how much this a symptom of languages which don't have good polymorphic type systems. There is certainly some bookkeeping involved, but I would argue that the time involved in this is offset by the faster development time overall. I might also suggest that it is a good thing, since the programming is forced to examine the overall structure and heirarchy of the project on various occasions, rather than let it just grow. >Such restrictions >may be symptomatic of an attitude of rigid, centralized control Presumably you're thinking of large teams of programmers with some kind of centralised management. In case I was thinking of, there was just myself, delivering a piece of software to contract. >Perhaps my main point is a general one, applicable to many debates >of this kind: Don't be closed to new approaches, even seemingly >radical ones, unless your current approach is absolutely >*delighting* your customers. My customers were extremely pleased that the exercise of prototyping in a strongly-typed, higher-order language enabled me to write the eventual source code many times faster than had I used a conventional languages to start with. However, your point is well taken. In fact, my approach *was* the new one, since I was using Standard ML on a Unix workstation in order to deliver code to a software house accustomed to PCs, MS-DOS and Microsoft C. >And even then, keep looking over your shoulder... Absolutely. Your other points are well taken. > Lawrence G. Mayka Nick. -- Nick Rothwell, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh. nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk !mcvax!ukc!lfcs!nick ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ "I like music which sounds like a flying DeLorean being struck by lightning"