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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Eric Clayberg Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/27 Message-ID: <32ED2448.685A@parcplace.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212602085 references: <5buodl$bci@boursy.news.erols.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: ParcPlace-Digitalk, Inc. mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: clayberg@parcplace.com newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) Date: 1997-01-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: David Hanley wrote: > Baloney boomerang. You've made dozens of counterintuitive claims for > dynamic typing( smalltalk in particular ) and supported zero of them. Counterintuitive to who? To someone who knows little about Smalltalk? To you maybe? A quick scan of the varied responses in this thread indicate that for quite a few people, these "claims" are quite intuitive and match their own real world experiences. It is the claim that Smalltalk is somehow less reliable than statically typed languages that I have seen zero support for (other than conjecture and innuendo). > In fact, people on the static typing 'side' of the issue, such as Fergus > Henderson, have provided good data with compelling arguemnts for static > typing. He certainly presented some data. It wasn't very clear that it provided much support for static typing, however. In fact, his numbers (especially the variety of errors that he ran into) only served to make me (and, I imagine, most of the other Smalltalk developers in this thread) quite happy that I was using Smalltalk (in which, as was pointed out in response to his numbers, most of those errors couldn't occur). > A good proof would be there the set of errors which can happen in a > statically typed system, as opposed to a dynamically typed syatem, are > fewer. This is a very simple arguemnt. OK, then, back it up. So far, *you* haven't *proven* anything. The above is yet another unsubstantiated claim that statically typed systems are somehow more reliable than dynamically typed systems. Show me some proof that Smalltalk is somehow less reliable for building applications than any arbitrary statically typed language. In fact, I would very much like to see the above list of potential errors (and your guess as to how frequently they might occur). Having used several different statically typed languages over the years as well as Smalltalk, my experience (and that of many of the folks contributing to this discussion) is that the Smalltalk-based systems are usually much more reliable in practice. -Eric