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: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: Jun Nolasco Subject: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing again (was Re: OO, C++, and something much better!) Date: 1997/01/27 Message-ID: <32ED8294.26E@inx.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 214164882 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> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Internet Exchange mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: nolasco@inx.net newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object x-mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) Date: 1997-01-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Richie Bielak wrote: > What also wanted to say in my previous post is that static typing > proves that there is no call in the program that will cause > the "message not understood" error. > > Is the chance of this kind of error "absurdly low"? In my experience, quite low. I don't know if "absurdly low." Jun Nolasco nolasco@inx.net