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.object Subject: Re: Run-time checks, Compile time Checks, and reliability Keywords: type checking, high reliability, fault tolerance Message-ID: <1991Apr16.082054.1791@tkou02.enet.dec.com> Date: 16 Apr 91 08:20:54 GMT References: <1991Mar28.161307.6071@cbnewsh.att.com> <27F780E2.1872@tct.com> <528@eiffel.UUCP> 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: 14 In article <528@eiffel.UUCP> bertrand@eiffel.UUCP (Bertrand Meyer) writes: >It is fairly common to use ``typed'' for ``statically typed'' and >``untyped'' for ``dynamically typed''. Yes, and this usage has a long history. However, it really does cause confusion. A Smalltalk variable really is dynamically typed by the language definition, because message sends have to reach the correct methods. However, a C variable of type "void *" really is untyped (well, almost) because everything is up to the programmer; the language does not provide for recovery of type information. -- Norman Diamond diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.