Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!media01!pkr
From: pkr@media01.UUCP (Peter Kriens)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: testing object oriented programs
Message-ID: <1184@media01.UUCP>
Date: 1 Jun 90 09:17:26 GMT
References: <1990May20.154035.15064@axion.bt.co.uk| <54783@microsoft.UUCP> <5121@stpstn.UUCP> <54917@microsoft.UUCP> <480@tetrauk.UUCP> <1990May30.204110.22011@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: pkr@media01.UUCP (Peter Kriens)
Organization: Mediasystemen, Netherlands
Lines: 19

Class invariants

The discussion about class invariants and static type checking
is a very crucial one. About this problem I have one question,
do the static typing and class invariants not limit the future
use of the code? Does the original programmer contain the wisdom
to foresee in what way his code will be reused? I have found
many times that I could reuse code which I was pretty sure
the original programmer could never have thought of. This gave
me reliable and debugged code. And doesn't this prevent more
errors than relying on type checking and forbidding people
to do something.

Besidedes doesnt the dynamic binding ease the debugging
process so much that there are hardly ever those obscure errors
that I remember from pascal and other "save" languages?

pkr
pkriens@media01