home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!rational.com!thor!rmartin
- From: rmartin@thor.Rational.COM (Bob Martin)
- Subject: Re: feedback wanted on appropriate OOPL
- Message-ID: <rmartin.726795186@thor>
- Sender: news@rational.com
- Organization: Rational
- References: <1992Dec30.171527.3534@informix.com> <1992Dec28.173620.14793@microsoft.com> <1992Dec29.011354.5929@informix.com> <726278910snx@trmphrst.demon.co.uk> <rmartin.726674455@thor> <TMB.93Jan10170408@arolla.idiap.ch>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:33:06 GMT
- Lines: 29
-
- tmb@arolla.idiap.ch (Thomas M. Breuel) writes:
-
- |In article <rmartin.726674455@thor> rmartin@thor.Rational.COM (Bob Martin) writes:
-
- | A language can have a significant impact, however, on quality,
- | run-time efficiency and coding efficiency. C++ will certainly catch
- | more programmer errors than stalk [Smalltalk], [...]
-
- |It is only true to say that _at compile time_, C++ will catch more
- |programmer errors than Smalltalk.
-
- |If you take into account both compile time and runtime, Smalltalk will
- |catch more "programmer errors" than C++: not only will Smalltalk catch
- |all type errors, but also bad pointers, overflows, and array bounds
- |violations, errors that go undetected in most C++ implementations and
- |are not mandated to be detected by the C++ definition.
-
- Deferring error detection to runtime is risky, since the error may be
- encountered several months after its release. Also, there are several
- C++ development environments that catch runtime errors just as nicely
- as stalk does. So, I don't accept that runtime error detection is
- either an advantage or the exclusive domain of stalk.
-
-
- --
- Robert Martin Training courses offered in:
- R. C. M. Consulting Object Oriented Analysis
- 2080 Cranbrook Rd. Object Oriented Design
- Green Oaks, Il 60048 (708) 918-1004 C++
-