[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Why else would it have been invented?
Large scale systems engineering relies on a
variety of tools and techniques for detecting
errors and noise. Is static type checking of
so little value that it shouldn't be in that
set or is it the case that it is relied on too
heavily and some class of errors is increasing
in frequency? Given that answer, is it a scale
issue, that is, useful at small but not large
scales?
My example was to contrast the Ariane example.
The Saturn V had a 100% success rate if the measure is
successful flights. It did experience failures
but the system design was robust enough to avert
major catastrophes. The Shuttle is not but Shuttles
are reused and Saturn Vs were throwaways. We don't
run a software system once and then throw it away
typically. So to state the merely obvious, the
error and noise techniques have to be sustaining
techniques. The Ariane quotes indirectly point
that out. So the question becomes what kinds of
errors will type checking find and when are they
useful.
The cost value of information is determined by
the number of choices eliminated before the system
changes state. The form of that information
(eg, a DTD or Schema vs business rules or just
object code) is a design choice.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com]
On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 09:57 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Umm... it may not catch all but it may catch most and
> that may be good enough or as good as it gets.
What do you mean by "it" in the above sentence? Do you mean "static
type checking"? If so, what makes you think that?
|
