Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:7423 comp.object:3182
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!noao!arizona!gudeman
From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.object
Subject: Re: Run-time Type Errors in Smalltalk
Message-ID: <1917@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 15 Apr 91 18:51:38 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Followup-To: comp.lang.misc
Lines: 19

In article  <1991Apr15.065146.16680@tkou02.enet.dec.com> Norman Diamond writes:
]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.
]...
]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.

How do you get a 10% increase in safety from the above?  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.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman