Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!apple!lins From: lins@Apple.COM (Chuck Lins) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Do we really need types in OOPL's? Message-ID: <46012@apple.Apple.COM> Date: 26 Oct 90 17:41:11 GMT References: <1990Oct19.180646.8649@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <45940@apple.Apple.COM> Distribution: comp Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA Lines: 22 In article bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan) writes: >In article <45940@apple.Apple.COM> lins@Apple.COM (Chuck Lins) writes : >> A compilation of a few seconds (or even minutes) costs >> far far less than the hours or days it takes to thoroughly test software. > >I'm not sure I understand the above as it seems to imply that >using strong/static typing means you don't have to test your software?? No. This would only be true if the only errors in software were errors caught by static typing. Such is not the case. So we must still test - regardless of language. Testing will end up consuming 30-50% of the total development cost. Any time the computer can help detect errors long before we reach the 'test phase' it is a good thing (and saves lots of money). This will become more important as software is increasingly being used in life-critical software. -- Chuck Lins | "Is this the kind of work you'd like to do?" Apple Computer, Inc. | -- Front 242 20525 Mariani Avenue | Internet: lins@apple.com Mail Stop 37-BD | AppleLink: LINS@applelink.apple.com Cupertino, CA 95014 | "Self-proclaimed Object Oberon Evangelist" The intersection of Apple's ideas and my ideas yields the empty set.