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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better! Date: 1997/01/25 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212097533 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <5buodl$bci@boursy.news.erols.com> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-01-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <32E68D40.65EC@parcplace.com> Eric Clayberg writes: > What about if your program crashed because you tried to address a null > pointer? Does this mean you shouldn't use C or C++? Yes. 1/2 :-) > Almost all "message not understood" errors are simply messages sent > to nil (the moral equivalent of a null pointer). This doesn't seem much better... > This usually happens either when something isn't initialized yet or > it has been prematurely released - certainly mot uncommon > occurrences in the static typing world. For non dispatched operations in a statically typed language with strong typing, this would not happen. For dispatched operations in such a language, it would be an unusual circumstance. > Real type errors (e.g., those that a static typing system would > actually catch) rarely ever occur in Smalltalk. Huh? You clearly have a rather limited view of strong static typing. What you are really saying is that weak static typing provides little structure (your "real type error"). So what? Static and dynamic are orthogonal to whether the type system is highly expressive and strongly enforced. > The simplicity and consistency of the language drastically reduces > the scenarios where a real type error would occur. On those rare Baloney. > occasions where a type error does occur, Smalltalk's excellent > debugging facilities make them very easy to correct. Irrelevant in a fielded piece of software. Invoking a debugger for a type error is not particularly useful while your assembly line grinds to a halt or otherwise chews up prodigious resources while you call in the developers to have a look at the "debugging screen". > But rather that guess about Smalltalk, why not give a try and see for > yourself? You can download Smalltalk Express (a fully functional 16-bit > Windows Smalltalk IDE) for free from http://www.objectshare.com. Hey, ST is nice - just don't make out that its dynamic typing is as safe as a statically checked strongly typed language in high reliability scenarios. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com