Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!shelby!rutgers!att!cbnewsc!lgm
From: lgm@cbnewsc.att.com (lawrence.g.mayka)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Do we really need types in OOPL's?
Summary: Dynamic typing shortens the edit-compile-debug cycle
Message-ID: <1990Oct2.230958.16544@cbnewsc.att.com>
Date: 2 Oct 90 23:09:58 GMT
References: <0yw10qr@Unify.Com> <411@eiffel.UUCP> <736@tetrauk.UUCP> <CLINE.90Oct1164608@cheetah.ece.clarkson.edu>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 17

In article <CLINE.90Oct1164608@cheetah.ece.clarkson.edu>, cline@cheetah.ece.clarkson.edu (Marshall Cline) writes:
> Strong typing is especially valuable for programming-in-the-large where the
> edit-compile-debug cycle is especially tedious.  All other things being
> equal (they're not), ``sooner'' error detection is better than ``later''.

Dynamically typed languages such as Common Lisp and Smalltalk perform
incremental compilation and loading, so the delay in the
edit-compile-debug cycle is near-zero.  Compile-time typing is
precisely what *requires* those long edit-compile-debug delays that
are so intolerable in conventional large software systems.


	Lawrence G. Mayka
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	lgm@iexist.att.com

Standard disclaimer.