Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:7242 comp.object:3012 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!cambridge.apple.com!alms From: alms@cambridge.apple.com (Andrew L. M. Shalit) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.object Subject: Re: Static typing: the OOP seatbelt Message-ID: Date: 2 Apr 91 20:13:33 GMT References: <22032@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <14160@life.ai.mit.edu> <1991Mar25.201620.5839@cua.cary.ibm.com> <27F11D7B.6309@tct.uucp> Sender: news@cambridge.apple.com Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cambridge, MA Lines: 24 In-reply-to: chip@tct.uucp's message of 27 Mar 91 22:32:27 GMT In article <27F11D7B.6309@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: According to rick@cua.cary.ibm.com.UUCP (Rick DeNatale): >I'm actually a little bit surprised that people put so much faith in compile >time type checking systems that they are willing to accept an implementation >that allows type errors that escape the compiler to cause wild branches and >other unsavory acts ... Please note! The C++ type system does, in fact, prevent such type errors -- UNLESS the programmer lies to the compiler about the type of an object. Such lies are entirely the programmers fault, and do not reflect badly on the language. That's a very good point. If programmers could just get out of the habit of putting bugs in their programs, all kinds of programming tools would become unnecessary. Unfortunately, most programmers seem to want to keep putting bugs in their programs. Maybe they just do it for sentimental reasons, or maybe it's something to do with job security. But I agree with Chip, there's no reason for a programming language or environment to do anything to help such stubborn people! -andrew