Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!extro!objtch From: objtch@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (Peter Goodall) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Run-time Type Errors in Smalltalk Message-ID: Date: 24 Apr 91 09:16:58 GMT References: <1917@optima.cs.arizona.edu> Sender: news@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia Lines: 28 Nntp-Posting-Host: extro.ucc.su.oz.au dnsurber@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (Douglas Surber) writes: >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. This mystical 10% says nothing about the other 90%, or what is responsible for them. They could be caused by having to rewrite code because the static typing did not provide enough reusability :-). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Goodall - Smalltalk Systems Consultant - objtch@extro.ucc.su.oz.au ObjecTech Pty. Ltd. - Software Tools, Training, and Advice 162 Burns Bay Rd, LANE COVE, NSW, AUSTRALIA. - Telephone: +61 2 418-7433