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: 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: 1997/01/27 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212707413 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <32E67751.4AFC@parcplace.com> <5c8dkh$2e0@news1.ucsd.edu> followup-to: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object Date: 1997-01-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <5c8dkh$2e0@news1.ucsd.edu> mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes: > : A > : static type checker would catch them no better in Smalltalk than it > : would in C++. > > This is where I disagree---a really good static language can express > interesting logical structure in the type system, and mechanically prevent > a number of "logic" errors as in other systems because they had checkable > type consequences. Exactly. That's it, in a nutshell. > : upon how their favorite statically typed language works. Smalltalk has > : very different rules than what are common in most statically typed > : languages. Smalltalk simply doesn't need static type checking. > > That ST is clean and coherent without it is not under debate. Exactly. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com