[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: The Airplane Example (was Re: StreamingXM L)

• To: 'Uche Ogbuji' <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Subject: RE: The Airplane Example (was Re: StreamingXM L)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:50:04 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

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@f...]

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.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The Airplane Example (was Re: StreamingXM L)
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>

• Prev by Date: RE: The Airplane Example (was Re: StreamingXML)
• Next by Date: Re: SAXException, checked, buy why?
• Previous by thread: RE: The Airplane Example (was Re: StreamingXML)
• Next by thread: Re: The Airplane Example (was Re: StreamingXM L)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread