Re: OO, C++, and something much better!

[cr@informatik.uni-kiel.de (Claus Reinke)]

In <32E99D64.DB6@parcplace.com> Eric Clayberg <clayberg@parcplace.com> 
writes (citing me):

>> Sorry, but you should definitely *not* base your conclusions about
>> statically typed languages on C,C++,Fortran, etc.

>Fair enough. I will base my conclusions about C++ based on C++. ;-)

>> Try something like Standard ML or Haskell

>When I get the time, I would like to. Are either commercially available?
>If so, where? What about free versions? Thanks.

Both are freely available in various implementations. Both have a
standard.  For Standard ML, there are also some commercial versions.
In view of the newsgroups line of this thread, I will only provide
some basic links here (the first two should suffice to get
information on implementations of these particular languages):

Information on Haskell 

  http://haskell.cs.yale.edu/haskell-report/haskell-report.html

The ML FAQ 

  http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/meta-lang-faq/faq.html

My own collection of FP links 

  http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~cr/FP.html


By the way, I (thought I) was completely against static type checking
(which I equated with typed languages in general) until I noticed
that it was only the all-or-nothing approach (restrict the language
until it can be statically typed) that caused my disapproval.

Of course, there are other issues, such as explicit type declarations
vs. type inference, or the problems of typing more advanced language
features (including some of object-oriented languages). The latter
seems to be one of the reasons why programming languages haven't
improved so much over the last decade, but it has also been a major
motivation to improve the theory and practice of type systems over
the same period of time.

Personally, I hope this research will lead to languages that are at
least as expressive as those early languages that had to rely
completely on either dynamic typing or explicit type declarations,
but combined with the virtues of mostly static and mostly implicit
type systems (and certainly with improved language designs).

Until this happens (if it does;-), it seems important to spread the
message that none of the current languages is perfect. Programmers
(and language designers) need to keep an open mind for those other
languages (and paradigms) they are not using daily.

Having said this, I tend to find experience reports of practioners in
various languages very valuable, and even more so without the
occasional attempt to compare `my language which I know very well'
with `your language which I haven't read about, too'. Only the
reports provide real information, based on experience which is hard
to collect personally in many different languages. Everybody can then
make his/her own decisions based on the facts provided. However, it
would be nice if these reports would also include `the experienced
programmer's wishlist', i.e., what do I miss most in the language I
know so well (NOT: what those other languages don't have).

This way, it might also be easier to overcome the problems of 
different programming culture, e.g., `I don't want static type systems,
but I could not work without all those tools that help me to analyze
my programs'.

Hope this helps,

-- 
Claus Reinke                                University of Kiel
email: cr@informatik.uni-kiel.de            Department of Computer Science
http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~cr/      Preusserstr. 1-9,   24105 Kiel