Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:7422 comp.object:3175 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!jrdzzz.jrd.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!jit345!diamond From: diamond@jit345.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.object Subject: Re: Run-time Type Errors in Smalltalk (was Re: blip (was...)) Message-ID: <1991Apr15.065146.16680@tkou02.enet.dec.com> Date: 15 Apr 91 06:51:46 GMT References: <887@puck.mrcu> <4243.2805b94a@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> Sender: usenet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (USENET News System) Reply-To: diamond@jit345.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond) Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo Lines: 19 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. This is a perfect example of engineering skills that have been learned through hard efforts and then rejected by practitioners who refuse to be engineers. In any other field of engineering, a 10% increase in safety would always be applied. To reject it would be grounds for lawsuits, at least. (Well, it did take a while before the auto industry accepted that lesson. And one of the fallouts of the Reagan era is lower safety standards in the auto industry. Hmm.....) -- Norman Diamond diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.