[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@prescod.net]
>
> Since maintenance lasts longer than initial
> development this would seem like a clear win for static
> type-checking except that it can often bloat and complicate
> the code and thus provide more opportunities for bugs to
> creep in. Here's what Robert C. Martin has to say:
[Thanks for the URL Paul, I was thinking about RCM and this quote when I
posted, but couldn't find it...]
> I think it is pretty well understood that for programming in
> the small, dynamic type checking wins. I think it will be
> another five or ten years before we have a clear answer about
> programming in the large. We need more programmers to move
> back and forth between the two types of developments, working
> on very large programs, and report their findings. Current
> anecdotal evidence goes both ways: some people claim that
> dynamic type checking helps in the large and others claim it hurts.
For programming in the large, we can view protocols as the stuff that
glues the small parts together.
Bill de hÓra
|
