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=1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH,
	INVALID_MSGID,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
From: David Hanley <david@netright.com>
Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better!
Date: 1997/01/27
Message-ID: <32ED07B7.7E77@netright.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 212631970
references: <JSA.97Jan16141937@alexandria> <5bphq4$5js@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
organization: netright technologies
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: david_nospam@netright.com
newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.object
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (WinNT; I)
Date: 1997-01-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Tansel Ersavas wrote:
> 
>
> I used Pascal, C and C++ for more than 10 years, and developed and led
> development of >500000 loc projects, and I am sorry to say that I still
> think they suck. I now use Smalltalk and Self and sometimes Java if I
> have to, and couldn't be happier.

	I agree that the three previously mentioned languages suck, but I do
not agree that they equal static typing.  I would say that of all the
languages you mention in the obove paragraph, Java is the best one, and
I would consider it statically typed.


> There is a big debate about importance of type checking in object
> oriented systems. We have one camp religiously defending type checking,
> and another group defending unnecessity of it. 

	This characterization of supporters of static tyoe chacking as
"religous" definitely contributes to the objective and factually-based
air of your post. :)

> 
> The problem is two edged. The more type information we put into the
> objects, the more we make them dependent of these types. Any changes on
> these types will have to be detected, and these parts of the programs
> need to be updated, even though in compiled systems a recompilation will
> suffice in many cases.

	Of course, you fail to mention that errors due to these changes will be
detected and flagged immediately, exactly ay the point of origin, rather
than later in the cycle, and far away.

> Contrary to what people say, type checking is against the nature of
> object oriented systems development.

	I didn't find this in any OO definintion I ever saw.  In fact, OO was
originally introduced in sumula, which was statically typed.

>  Remember, in OO, we only care about
> the interface of the other object.

	And the interface accepts and return things, which have typed.

>  In fact it should be an OO sin to ask
> the type, because, in theory, we don�t want to get intimate with objects
> we are interacting apart from their interface.

	Which acceps and returns types.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hanley, Software Developer, NetRight technologies.
My employer pays me for my opinions; nonetheless he does not share all
of them
E-mail address munged to defeat automailers, Delete _nospam