Re: Resolved: NOT (w/ informal proof). --Was Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming:OOP and memory management
From: Richard Riehle (adaworks_at_earthlink.net)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:03:32 GMT
"Thomas Gagne" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> Thank goodess SQL isn't statically compiled. There's no way of telling
> of time what columns might be in the tuple until the SQL is written. It's
> only at runtime that it can be determined whether the column names the
> programmer referenced exist. And no one has a problem with that.
Static typing does not mean "inflexible."
In a language such as Ada, where the compiler checks a great
many things early in the development process, including the
legal usage of type instances, that checking is ensuring the
absence of certain kinds of errors. There may still be some
errors, but one has confidence that those errors that can be
evaluated by the compiler have been.
That same language needs to be able to interface with utility
software such as SQL. Although some might regard SQL
as a programming language, it is a language of very limited
range, albeit quite powerful for its intended purposes.
Further, the debate over whether a compiler should do
static [type] checking or not is actually quite silly. In
some circumstances, static checking is useful and contributes
to productivity as well as maintainability. At other times,
a more relaxed model is appropriate. The wise software
practitioner will learn, with education and experience, when
to choose the appropriate tools, and that will including
knowing when to use static checking on non-static checking.