🚀 go-pugleaf

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