[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
i really have to agree with len here. my experience in building a
complete rdbms followed the sorts of things we have here: get ideas into
place and working, code good, but sloppy in type checking in particular.
lint was a pain in the neck in those days. then came standard c and an
improved set of compilers that did static type checking properly. the
next exercise - which took months - was to carefully investigate and
repair all the static typing errors. there's probably more because to
this day i haven't got all the function calls properly documented. the
code reliability however improved dramatically! and while mixing up
integers can be a problem, if you use strong typecasting for things (ie
not just pointers, but typecast pointers; not just integers, but
typecast integers) even those problems can be eliminated.
as indicated on this list dynamic or static type casting is fundamental
to reliable software. the more the better in my view.
and one final note on static/dynamic. the former i find most useful for
static things like compiled programs while the latter i find better for
dynamic things like data being passed between applications.
rick
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Perhaps but that isn't at issue. I can quack and waddle.
>Am I a duck?
>
>Real time systems need fast execution. Dynamic typing
>is a good distributed tool but a lousy real time tool
>where both safety and speed are necessary.
>
>A statically typed library is a better bet for aggregate
>development. The lover of dynamic typing who
>has no use for static typing can be someone who optimizes
>their own work and craft to the exclusion of others.
>"Works for me. The bugs are your problem." and those
>people have no business working large systems development
>projects. Is it really that tough to declare types
>and get some help from the compiler?
>
>Given bad implementation or linked libraries in other
>languages, it is foolish to rely simply on type safety.
>On the other hand, it isn't foolish to use a language
>that provides type safety. If your point is that
>real men don't need static type languages, at times
>you might be right. If your point is that static type
>safety isn't a strong guarantee given the myriad
>ways errors can occur (eg, casting, dangling pointers),
>you are right. On the other hand, optimization
>by compilers, being able to ignore low level details,
>a bit more type safety even if not 100%, and interface
>modularity are worth the trouble for the projects
>that need faster execution and safer libraries.
>
>History is littered with the corpses of geese claimed
>to be ducks.
>
>len
>
>
>From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com]
>
>On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 11:27 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>
>
>>Why else would it have been invented?
>>
>>
>
>That question underscores a huge deal about the differences in our
>thinking.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
>
begin:vcard
fn:Rick Marshall
n:Marshall;Rick
email;internet:rjm@zenucom.com
tel;cell:+61 411 287 530
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
