Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!bony1!richieb
From: richieb@bony1.bony.com (Richard Bielak)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Run-time checks, Compile time Checks, and reliability
Keywords: type checking, high reliability, fault tolerance
Message-ID: <1991Apr3.203332.25348@bony1.bony.com>
Date: 3 Apr 91 20:33:32 GMT
References: <1991Mar28.161307.6071@cbnewsh.att.com> <27F780E2.1872@tct.com>
Reply-To: richieb@bony1.UUCP (Richard Bielak)
Organization: Bank of New York
Lines: 28

In article <27F780E2.1872@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>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.
>
[...]

Another argument for static type checking is that it is more
efficient, since many checks need only to be done once - at compile
time - and not millions of times at run time.

Confucius says "It is more efficient to do something once, than to do
it a thousand times".


...richie


-- 
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Richie Bielak  (212)-815-3072    | Programs are like baby squirrels. Once   |
| Internet:      richieb@bony.com  | you pick one up and handle it, you can't |
| Bang:       uunet!bony1!richieb  | put it back. The mother won't feed it.   |