eberard@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Edward Berard) (01/04/90)
Folks, I recently posted a large message to comp.object on the evaluation of object-oriented programming languages. I have received a number of responses. I would be interested in getting your reaction to the following quotes from one of respondees: >> object-oriented programming. Smalltalk has, in effect, no >> types, but there are typed extensions to Smalltalk, e.g., > > Again, CL and Smalltalk have *run-time* types - restrictions on > the use of *objects* during program *execution*. Languages such > as Ada have *compile-time* types - restrictions on the use of > *identifiers* during program *compilation.* [...] > > More accurately, run-time typing places the burden on the run-time > system, whereas compile-time typing places the burden on the > compiler *and* the programmer (who must provide explicit type > declarations and obey them at all times during program > development). I would ask again what solid *experimental* > evidence anyone has to show that compile-time typing actually > results in programs more reliable than those possible with > run-time typing, *in the presence of the requirements evolution > that is present in any large, complex software project*. Are there any references documenting the benefits of strong vs. weak typing? What are your reactions to the definitions given? -- Ed Berard (301) 353-9652