From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Eric Clayberg Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/23 Message-ID: <32E712B2.5060@parcplace.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 211654934 references: <32DF458F.4D5C@concentric.net> <32DF94DC.6FF8@watson.ibm.com> <32DFD972.37E4@concentric.net> <5bphq4$5js@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <32E05FAF.47BA@concentric.net> <5buodl$bci@boursy.news.erols.com> <32E2FEC7.2F7B@concentric.net> <5bvncj$gqg$1@A-abe.resnet.ucsb.edu> <32E47B4B.56D9@concentric.net> <5c4fr0$27j@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <32E67751.4AFC@parcplace.com> <5c6468$2rv$1@A-abe.resnet.ucsb.edu> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: ParcPlace-Digitalk, Inc. mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: clayberg@parcplace.com newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) Date: 1997-01-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Graham Hughes wrote: > Bullshit. Right back at ya. > Having a type error propogate to the user is the height of immaturity. What about propogating a null pointer exception to the user? Is that somehow better? Propogating *any* error to the user could be considered the "height of immaturity". I have been involved in dozens of commercial Smalltalk development efforts ranging from shrink-wrapped apps to large mission critical MIS apps. Type errors propogated to the user of Smalltalk apps are a *very* rare occurrence indeed. If you have some evidence to the contrary, then present it. > You mean the percentage of actual type related errors that you have > actually _caught_, no? There is a substantial difference. No. I mean the percentage of actual type errors that are actually introduced to begin with. Having worked extensively with several statically types languages (C, C++, Fortran, etc.) and now having worked commercially with Smalltalk over the last several years, I conclude that most "type" errors in statically types languages are due to the complicated nature of their syntaxes and the draconian rules of their type systems. Smalltalk doesn't have those problems and doesn't lend itself to "type" errors of that nature. Almost all "message not understood" errors are messages directed to nil (the moral equivalent of a null pointer in C). > I _have_ used Smalltalk. Which version? How long ago? Have you used it commercially? Have you ever propogated a type error to the user of a system you developed in Smalltalk? > Incidentally, if you really care about spreading Smalltalk you might > want to attempt to get the FSF to fix their Smalltalk implementation. I > can't fiddle around with Smalltalk anymore because that's the only > one I can get for Linux, and it doesn't work. Sorry. I never heard of FSF. If you want to try out a commercial grade Smalltalk IDE (which appears not to describe whatever "FSF" product you used), there are at least half a dozen available. I'm not aware of *any* that support Linux. If you have access to Windows, then you should take a look at Smalltalk Express. It's available free from http://www.objectshare.com. While only 16-bit, it is a fully functional commercial Smalltalk IDE. -Eric