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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: Richie Bielak Subject: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing again (was Re: OO, C++, and something much better!) Date: 1997/01/24 Message-ID: <32E9256B.2130@calfp.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 211993041 x-nntp-posting-host: host006.nyc.interactive.net references: <32DF458F.4D5C@concentric.net> <32DF94DC.6FF8@watson.ibm.com> <32DFD972.37E4@concentric.net> <32E4FC5B.242C@watson.ibm.com> <32E6862D.608B@parcplace.com> <32E764D0.23D9@calfp.com> <32E7A686.56D@parcplace.com> <32E7BD57.2558@calfp.com> <32E7E08A.3079@parcplace.com> <32E8BCE3.3029@calfp.com> <01bc0a1e$faed8ce0$c318b993@jarvisb> x-nntp-posting-user: (Unauthenticated) content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii x-trace: 854140417/4020 organization: IBS Interactive, Inc. mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; SunOS 5.4 sun4m) Date: 1997-01-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Bob Jarvis wrote: > > Richie Bielak wrote in article <32E8BCE3.3029@calfp.com>... > > There seems to be a cultural gap between the static-typing and > > dynamic-typing crowds. I was raised on statically typed languages > > and feel lost in a dynamically typed language (I fiddled little > > with Smalltalk and now I'm playing with Python). I mean, I read the > > code and can't tell what type a variable is... > > As were many of us ("raised" on statically-typed languages). I guess that > after a while you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh, nuts. If the dang > object responds properly to the messages I send it, what do *I* care what > its actual type or class is?". But static type checking guarantees that the object, whatever its type, *will* respond properly to the message we sent it. Of course provided the object is there (i.e. we're not sending to 'nil'). [...mainframe vs. PC discussion trimmed out...] I'm not sure your analogy works, but in a way you maybe right. I believe that programming languages of the future must be more dynamic than let's say Pascal. You can see an little of that in Java. In the future an application will not be an excutable file loaded into memory from disk, but bits of code loaded at runtime from anywhere on the network. ...richie -- * richieb@netlabs.net - at home | Richie Bielak * * richieb@calfp.com - at work | * * Home page: http://www.netlabs.net/hp/richieb * * "Fight software piracy, use free software!" (me) *