home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!ac690
- From: ac690@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edward Klimas)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: feedback wanted on appropriate OOPL
- Message-ID: <1itoe9INNi05@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
- Date: 12 Jan 93 06:28:25 GMT
- References: <1993Jan10.220917.22879@netcom.com> <726278910snx@trmphrst.demon.co.uk> <rmartin.726674455@thor> <TMB.93Jan10170408@arolla.idiap.ch>
- Reply-To: ac690@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edward Klimas)
- Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
- Lines: 22
- NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu
-
-
- In a previous article, erc@netcom.com (Eric Smith) says:
-
- >In article <TMB.93Jan10170408@arolla.idiap.ch> tmb@idiap.ch writes:
- >>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
- >
- >But when is runtime? When the program starts running, or when it
- >encounters unusual data several years after it's put into production?
- >
- >The advantage of compile time error detection is that all the errors
- >that can be caught by the compiler are caught before the program is
- >released.
- The message at OOPSLA-92 from two separate experience reports
- was that Smalltalk was possibly as much as an order of
- magnitude better than C/C++ in terms of quality of the resulting
- code. The result is that the current implementations of
- type checking don't bring as much to the quality table as other
- C++ issues like runaway pointers and memory management take away.
-