Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:7521 comp.object:3241 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.object Subject: Re: Run-time Type Errors in Smalltalk (was Re: blip (was...)) Message-ID: Date: 16 Apr 91 14:47:16 GMT References: <1991Apr15.065146.16680@tkou02.enet.dec.com> Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. Lines: 23 diamond@jit345.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond) writes: > In article <4243.2805b94a@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> klimas@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com w > > 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. [...] > 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. Possibly true, although I can think of examples in other fields of engineering where 10% increases in safety have NOT been applied. Look at the design of roll-on, roll-off ferries, for example. Or US domestic electrical wiring (no earth, no ELCB!) Also, remember that using a strongly-typed statically typed language is not necessarily the only way to achieve that 10% increase. mathew -- If you're a John Foxx fan, please mail me!