Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:7387 comp.object:3140
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!uflorida!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!abvax!iccgcc!klimas
From: klimas@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.object
Subject: Re: Run-time Type Errors in Smalltalk (was Re: blip (was...))
Message-ID: <4243.2805b94a@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Date: 12 Apr 91 18:42:34 GMT
References: <3523:Mar1803:21:0591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <22032@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <14160@life.ai.mit.edu> <1991Mar25.201620.5839@cua.cary.ibm.com> <879@puck.mrcu> <PX.91Apr1225918@hal.fct.unl.pt> <887@puck.mrcu> <OLSON.91Apr6172626@lear.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Lines: 8

In article <OLSON.91Apr6172626@lear.juliet.ll.mit.edu>, olson@lear.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Olson) writes:
> In article <887@puck.mrcu> paj@mrcu (Paul Johnson) writes:
>    Does anyone have any facts relating to the assertion that run-time
>    failures due to type errors are rare in Smalltalk development?
	Some info that I picked up from a company doing a lot of big
	project work with C++ (i.e. strong type checking language) was
	that postmortems on their project revealed only 10% of their
	errors were captured by strong type checking.