Re: Build language with weak typing, then add scaffolding later to strengthen it?

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Tue, 26 May 2015 15:39:06 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote:

> You want user defined integer
> types, and no magic for IOs? Then you'll need packages

Yes, but unrelated to user-defined types. Packages are for modularity and
separate compilation. Wirth's languages are notably weak in that respect.

> and generics.

No. Classes can be obtained without generics. It is static vs. dynamic
polymorphism.

> Safe IOs also require exceptions. And you certainly want aggregates,
> because they are sooo convenient.

Aggregates could be primitive subprograms. The syntax sugar of aggregates
could be made open for user definitions.

> The only things that could be detached are tasking and OOP.

None of them could, and Ada's unsuccessful attempts perfectly illustrate
that.

> Of course
> not having the latter would be highly politically incorrect,

It has nothing to do with PC in any sense. If the language should support
generic programming, there is no alternative to run-time classes. Generics
are not a substitute because they do not prove named typed class-wide
objects. They are simply untyped.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de