Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!daver!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: CHALLENGE: typing and reusability Message-ID: <2800BB03.1D10@tct.com> Date: 8 Apr 91 18:48:35 GMT References: <1404@optima.cs.arizona.edu> <27FA22CE.51A4@tct.com> <5APR91.00271522@uc780.umd.edu> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 29 According to cs450a03@uc780.umd.edu: >David Gudeman: >>>The problem with this and all the other solutions is that they >>>involve a non-trivial amount of extra work -- work that is only >>>necessary to overcome problems that are caused by static typing. >>>Rather than try to find ways around the problem, why not eliminate >>>the source of the problem? > >Chip Salzenburg: >>Because I like type safety. > >Me (Raul Rockwell): >(1) What is "type safety"? For me, it means that "messageNotUnderstood" is impossible unless I lie to the compiler. >(2) How do you achieve it by static analysis of a program? You don't. You achieve it by conscious thought and planning (horrors!) and by manual specification of variable types. >(3) How does that exclude dynamic typing? Dynamic typing permits "messageNotUnderstood". -- Brand X Industries Custodial, Refurbishing and Containment Service: When You Never, Ever Want To See It Again [tm] Chip Salzenberg ,