Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pdn!tscs!tct!chip
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Run-time checks, Compile time Checks, and reliability
Keywords: type checking, high reliability, fault tolerance
Message-ID: <27F780E2.1872@tct.com>
Date: 1 Apr 91 18:50:10 GMT
References: <1991Mar28.161307.6071@cbnewsh.att.com>
Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL
Lines: 17

According to warren@cbnewsh.att.com (warren.a.montgomery):
>"Run-time checks are unsuitable for high reliability systems,
> because you can't afford a run-time detected error".

That statement misrepresents the position of static typing partisans.
Of course run-time errors will occur.  However, any run-time error
that could have been detected at compile-time is Evil and Rude to the
user.  Thus I choose static typing when possible.

>"Compile time checking and certified compilers eliminate the need
> for run-time checking."

That statement is a straw man, and does not deserve rebuttal.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT     <chip@tct.com>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
   "All this is conjecture of course, since I *only* post in the nude.
    Nothing comes between me and my t.b.  Nothing."   -- Bill Coderre