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: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: john@peacesummit.com (John Gale)
Subject: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing again (was Re: OO, C++,
 and something much better!)
Date: 1997/01/29
Message-ID: <32f40669.218760080@news.jumppoint.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 213004056
references: <JSA.97Jan16141937@alexandria> <32E7BB32.6A9D@calfp.com>
 <32E85588.1978@parcplace.com> <32ec94c5.12380906@news.ipass.net>
 <E4n2rn.n4@world.std.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Peace Summit Technologies
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: john@peacesummit.com
newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object
Date: 1997-01-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In <E4n2rn.n4@world.std.com>, Robert A Duff wrote:

} In article <32ec94c5.12380906@news.ipass.net>,
} Paul Perkins <paul.perkins@pobox.com> wrote:
} >Another reason to think that some kind of declarative type feature
} >could be useful in Smalltalk is that good Smalltalk programmers
} >typically use naming conventions and sometimes even comments to
} >indicate what kinds of values are expected to be bound to each
} >variable. The idea of formalizing this just enough so that the
} >information is available to automated tools is appealing to me.
} 
} Indeed.  The Smalltalk programmer writes
} 
}     grindOn: aString and: anotherString
} 
} whereas the Ada programmer writes
} 
}     procedure Grind_On(X, Y: String);
} 
} Obviously both programmers think its useful to know what type is
} expected for a formal parameter.  The latter has the advantage that it
} can't accidentally be incorrect information.

Granted, however, tools can easily be developed to check that aString and
anotherString are always passed Strings.  The tools can be set to run in the
background so that you can do something else while they are working et voila.
BUT this does require that the programmer always have the word String where a
string is wanted.

I am not trying to get any religious war going here. Each system seem to have
challenges and benefits.  I want the benefits of both without any of the
challenges. :)

<snip>
________________________________________________
John Gale                   john@peacesummit.com
Creativity & imagination are more to be 
         valued than obediance & ambition