Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!media03!pkr
From: pkr@media03.UUCP (Peter Kriens)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Casting downward
Message-ID: <2352@media03.UUCP>
Date: 3 Jun 91 08:14:14 GMT
References: <675518012.11@sunbrk.FidoNet> <28468F0F.4444@tct.com>
Reply-To: pkr@media03.UUCP (Peter Kriens)
Organization: aQute, Netherlands
Lines: 17

Chip Salzberg writes:
> I take care in my C++ programming not to lose the static type of any
> object for which I will need that static type later on.  Obviously,
> this means that I cannot use just one Array class, one Bag class, etc.
>
> It's better to be type-safe than to be convenient.

Is there any research done validates this statement? As far as I can see
there are pro's and con's for both methods. In the C++ language being
typesafe means code duplication and handling a lot more cases. Resulting
in a program with lots more lines of code and minimising reuse. Type
safe means that you got your types ok, but not all the other 90%
or mistakes you can make. So evenif it compiles, it probably doesnt
run at once. So which one wins,lesser code ( is I assume lesser bugs) and
more reuse, or the type safety?

Peter Kriens