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: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: Eric Clayberg Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/29 Message-ID: <32EEE219.3C03@parcplace.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212958011 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: 1997-01-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: David Hanley wrote: > It's also sarcastic on my part. Indeed. Do you find yourself being sarcastic often? Are you often misinterpretted? > I find one of the most diffucult part about talking to religous fanatics > of any kind is that they don't understand basic sarcasm. Possibly so. Met any "religious fanatics" lately? Care to name any? > I'm not saying that there's a clear-cut answer; never did. Good. I'm glad we are in agreement. > What I object to is some bigoted person periodically posting how dramatically > better (ST/C/C++/COBOL/JAVA/etc) is than all other languages, and how > all programmers who do not use it are idiots. Yeah. I hate that too. I haven't seen anyone here doing that (I would have definitely picked up on the word "idiot" if it had been used). You make sure and let us know if that happens. Ya know, I have my own pet peeve as well. I really object when folks condemn a language and imply that its users must be idiots - especially when it is obvious that they have never actually used the language. Good thing no one is doing that either, eh? > Frankly, I don't care what language you happen to like; it doesn't > affect me in the slightest. It's when people make uninformed derogitory > remarks that I get irritated. Clearly. I don't like that either - especially when those remarks concern Smalltalk. > Since we both agree that there is a certian class of errors that > statically typed languages prevent, what needs to be shown is what > errors dynamically typed languages will prevent. I am not aware of > these, and I sure haven't seen any sign of them! Good. So you are admitting that you might be "uninformed" on this topic? That's OK though. Since you haven't used Smalltalk, I wouldn't expect you to understand its capabilities. If you would like to expand your knowledge in this area, there are a number of very nice (and free) Smalltalk environments available. One of the best is Smalltalk Express which you can get from http://www.objectshare.com/seinfo.htm. > Ok, I'm makign one assumption: > static typing dynamic typing > type errors few more > other errors same same Hmmm. That's a mighty broad assumption. Do all statically typed languages achieve the same error rates? Do all dynamic languages? How are you quantifying "few" and "more"? Could "more" mean "few+1"? What do you consider "type" errors vs. "other" errors? > Since we agree on the first line, the second one is then in question. Yeah. It gets back to your earlier "set of errors" argument. What are you defining as "other errors". If you want to play this game, then you should at least define your terms. > If you don't present a reason why there will be fewer other errors in a > statically typed language, I'm going to assume that there will be fewer > erors total Again, this seems to be a very broad assumption on your part seemingly based on insufficient data. > Because the run-time error set is larger. Again, how do you know that? What Smalltalk environment have you used/studied/analyzed that leads you to that conclusion? > I can think of a lot of errors. I think it would be more productive if > you listed the errors you think don't apply. Since this "set of errors" argument was yours, it would be much more appropriate for you to actually back up your own argument and provide said set of errors. Since I don't agree with your premise to begin with, I don't know what set of errors you had in mind. If you provide the list, I (and I'm sure many others) would be happy to point out which ones don't apply. -Eric