Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:7394 comp.object:3148 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!brunix!doorknob!rsw From: rsw@cs.brown.EDU (Bob Weiner) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.object Subject: Re: Run-time Type Errors in Smalltalk (was Re: blip (was...)) Message-ID: Date: 13 Apr 91 08:21:19 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> <887@puck.mrcu> <4243.280 Sender: news@brunix.UUCP Organization: Brown U. Lines: 14 In-reply-to: klimas@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com's message of 12 Apr 91 18:42:34 GMT In article <4243.2805b94a@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> klimas@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: > 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. I doubt that any professional software designers are willing to log every instance that their compiler spits out an error. Their productivity might drop considerably. Hence it is a fair bet that this company did not have an accurate record of errors detected by a compiler for a strongly typed language. They may have only recorded problems found as the software passed from design to quality testing. -- Bob Weiner rsw@cs.brown.edu