Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!eos!aio!dnsurber From: dnsurber@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (Douglas Surber) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Run-time Type Errors in Smalltalk Message-ID: Date: 16 Apr 91 13:56:21 GMT Article-I.D.: node_220.dnsurber.671810181 References: <1917@optima.cs.arizona.edu> Sender: news@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (USENET News System) Reply-To: dsurber@nasamail.nasa.gov Organization: nasa-jsc Lines: 22 In <1917@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: >If they >hadn't caught those errors by static typing they would have caught >them by testing -- the same way the found the other 90% of the errors. >This logic error combined with the strident tone of the article >suggests that your convictions are affecting your thinking. The real question is how long would it take them to catch those errors by testing? The type checker catches them all first time every time. Admittedly not every error, but reducing the number of errors by 10% before you even begin testing sounds like a win to me. Further, the type checker finds type errors even in code that, for one reason or another, is never excersized during testing. Again not every error, but a 10% reduction is still something. -- Douglas Surber Internet: dnsurber@jsc.nasa.gov Lockheed NASAmail: dnsurber/jsc/nasa Houston, Texas Phone: 713-283-5195 Life can be only understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards.