Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!yale!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!pacbell!att!cbnewsc!lgm
From: lgm@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (lawrence.g.mayka)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Strong Vs. Weak Typing
Message-ID: <12667@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Date: 9 Jan 90 11:59:50 GMT
References: <1303@quintus.UUCP>
Reply-To: lgm@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (lawrence.g.mayka,ihp,)
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 19

In article <1303@quintus.UUCP> jbeard@quintus.UUCP () writes:
>Part of the Pascal idiom and rationale is in-fact that STRONG typing at
>compile time leads to fewer runtime errors, which errors due to type conflicts
>are often difficult to debug.  This feature of Pascal is/was a direct fall-out
>of research in the area of programmers productivity and program correctness.

But such research, as far as I've seen, has always been a
comparison between strong compile-time typing, as in Pascal, and
weaker compile-time typing, as in C; or no compile-time typing at
all, as in assembly language.  The posted question was whether
anyone has any solid evidence of the claimed superiority of
compile-time typing over RUN-time typing, as in Common Lisp.


	Lawrence G. Mayka
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	lgm@ihlpf.att.com

Standard disclaimer.