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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID 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: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: feldmand@erols.com (Damon Feldman) Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/22 Message-ID: <5c425a$7dp@boursy.news.erols.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 211370148 references: <32DF458F.4D5C@concentric.net> <32DF94DC.6FF8@watson.ibm.com> <32DFD972.37E4@concentric.net> <5bphq4$5js@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <32E05FAF.47BA@concentric.net> <5buodl$bci@boursy.news.erols.com> <32E2FEC7.2F7B@concentric.net> organization: Erol's Internet Services newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object Date: 1997-01-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Alan Lovejoy wrote: >Damon Feldman wrote: >> Alan Lovejoy wrote: >> >Fergus Henderson wrote: >> If they had _SmallTalk_ with static typing, would they use it instead of >> SmallTalk? Since Java is just such a product, and is the hottest thing out >> there right now, it could be that people *are* convinced that OO w/ static >> typing is the way to go. >Ever heard of StrongTalk? It's Smalltalk with static typing. It was a failure >in the marketplace. There could be a lot of explanations for this. Why has SmallTalk floundered for some 20 years (if you start w/ ST72 and go up to 4 years ago). Success in the free market doesn't equate to good language design or high productivity all the time. Look at all the C and COBOL out there :-). >Why would Prudential choose Smalltalk as a replacement for COBOL, There are many possibilities other than dynamic typing. >> Also, can't you just send everything flying around the system as an Object >> (root of the whole class tree) in those situations when you want dynamic >> typing? > >Not in Java. Java won't let you send any message that the compiler doesn't >know will be valid. This strikes me as a more valid point. But it raises the question of exactly when you would want to send a message that might raise an error if you're not careful about the procedural flow that gives rise to the message send. This task is hard enough in a procedural system, and OO should insulate us from all things procedural, anyway (1/2 :-). Don't you generally *know* that the message will be handled because you know that only descendents of a certain class will be the reciever? In which case you can declare the reciever of that type and still enjoy polymorphism without having the programmer keep track of what flows give rise to what types for which objects at what times. Damon