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: kennel@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better!
Date: 1997/01/28
Message-ID: <5cm2qq$2qa@news1.ucsd.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 212859709
references: <JSA.97Jan16141937@alexandria> <5buodl$bci@boursy.news.erols.com>
 <32EE3899.1B49@parcplace.com>
followup-to: 
 comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel
organization: The University of California at San Diego
newsgroups: 
 comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel
Date: 1997-01-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Eric Clayberg (clayberg@parcplace.com) wrote:
: So,
: once again, I ask, where is your proof that Smalltalk is somehow less
: reliable for building applications than any arbitrary statically typed
: language?

There is no "proof", but I strongly suspect that most statically typed
languages possess more assertions in idiomatic code than ones that do not.