Path: news.daimi.aau.dk!news.uni-c.dk!sunic!sunic.sunet.se!news.sprintlink.net!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!galaxy.ucr.edu!corvette.ucr.edu!thp
From: thp@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_DOMAIN_FILE (Tom Payne)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.python,comp.lang.sather,comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: Rapid Prototyping + statically-typed OOPLs?
Followup-To: comp.object,comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.python,comp.lang.sather,comp.lang.smalltalk
Date: 12 Jul 1995 20:16:20 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside Department of Computer Science
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <3u1aik$1f5@galaxy.ucr.edu>
References: <805548287snz@galacta.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: corvette.ucr.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: news.daimi.aau.dk comp.object:33421 comp.lang.beta:447 comp.lang.c++:128728 comp.lang.eiffel:9193 comp.lang.python:4985 comp.lang.sather:1915 comp.lang.smalltalk:24317

Dr. Rich Artym (rartym@galacta.demon.co.uk) wrote:
<snip>
: constraints.  Since the requirements and design are not known fully until
: the R.P. development is ended, it would appear that the benefits offered
: by languages like C++ are not easily achievable in an R.P. environment,
: or conversely, that use of such languages could hamper the R.P. effort
: and so reduce the benefits of this form of development.
<xnip>


I can't see why!  

The benefits of static type checking have to do with early detection
of errors (compile time vs. run time) and the fact that compile-time
errors are much more easily fixed.  Rapid debugging would seem to be
beneficial to rapid prototyping.

Obviously, the benefits of interpreters in terms of nearly instant
recompilation and run-time code modification might outweigh the
benefits of static type checking.  I don't see these as mutually
exclusive, however.


Tom Payne