Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:7404 comp.object:3157 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!rain.andrew.cmu.edu!ddean From: ddean@rain.andrew.cmu.edu (Drew Dean) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.object Subject: Re: Run-time Type Errors in Smalltalk (was Re: blip (was...)) Message-ID: <12666@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Date: 14 Apr 91 00:09:03 GMT References: <887@puck.mrcu> <4243.2805b94a@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> Organization: Carnegie Mellon University Lines: 23 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 think this depends on what you call "strongly typed." Personally, I wouldn't call any C derived language strongly typed, as long as (void *) exists. If you want to see REAL strong typing, try, say Standard ML (Ok, ok, it's a functional language so I shouldn't be mentioning it in this group. :-) I don't want to start the functional vs OOP flamefest.) I'm just using this as an example of a really strong type system: wherever it can, it automatically infers the type of the expression, and won't compile anything that doesn't typecheck. The only experience with dynamically-typed systems I have are Lisp-based systems, just today I crashed one with a type error. It could be that imperative/functional programs are more prone to type-errors that OO programs; (note: this is a conjecture) does anyone have any real data on the subject ? -- Drew Dean Drew_Dean@rain.andrew.cmu.edu [CMU provides my net connection; they don't necessarily agree with me.]