Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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@f...] 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?
|
