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: 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: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing again (was Re: OO, C++,
 and something much better!)
Date: 1997/01/30
Message-ID: <E4t23u.F9A@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 213168632
references: <JSA.97Jan16141937@alexandria> <32ec94c5.12380906@news.ipass.net>
 <E4n2rn.n4@world.std.com> <32f40669.218760080@news.jumppoint.com>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object
Date: 1997-01-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <32f40669.218760080@news.jumppoint.com>,
John Gale <john@peacesummit.com> wrote:
>} 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'm not sure what, exactly, these tools are supposed to do.  I mean,
what does it make of notAString (which is anything but a String)?  More
realistically, what does it make of lengthOfTheNameString, which is (of
course) an integer?  (In Smalltalk, I mean.)

Besides, "tools can easily be developed" is hardly a useful argument,
unless it's actually been done.

>I am not trying to get any religious war going here.

I fear it's too late.  (But I still think it's fun to discuss particular
language features, if people don't get too caught up in "My language is
better than yours.")

>...Each system seem to have
>challenges and benefits.  I want the benefits of both without any of the
>challenges. :)

Me too.

- Bob