Message-ID: <331E280A.3558@inxpress.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 20:12:26 -0600
From: drs <drs@inxpress.net>
Reply-To: drs@inxpress.net
Organization: University of Wisconsin
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
CC: bill@iconcomp.com
Subject: Re: pouring gasoline [was Re: Fiddling while Smalltalk burns]
References: <3314895F.2162@smalltalk.com> <5fc2ik$1a68$1@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <331C7623.2E0A@inxpress.net> <331D9408.4D70@iconcomp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.120.4.243
Lines: 44
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!cam-news-feed3.bbnplanet.com!news.inc.net!uwm.edu!newsfeeds.sol.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-4.sprintlink.net!news.inxpress.net!204.120.4.243

Bill Gooch wrote:
> 
> drs wrote:
> > ....
> > Instead of whining about java, smalltalkers ought to be praising
> > it--because
> > what java represents is really the triumph of the byte-code, garbage
> > collection, the virtual machine, and objects in general. and, if you
> > have some special fondness
> > for the "classic" smalltalk syntax, then let us build a front-end which
> > offers it.
> 
> There's more to it than syntax.  Static typing cannot
> be dealt with through a Smalltalk-like "front end;" if
> such a beast were modified to the extent that it could
> handle static type specifications, it wouldn't be much
> like Smalltalk any more.  The issue here is that static
> typing imposes some hard constraints on development.

I understand your concern, Bill, but I'm not convinced
this is a problem. According to Arthur Von Hoff, java objects 
have both a static *and* a dynamic type, which is available 
at runtime. He says "it is always possible to ask a java
object for its dynamic type." This is quid pro quo smalltalk--
which (along with a nice hierarchy browser) is really what the "dynamic 
incremental" school of programming is built around. If you can
add java classes on the fly, or perform incremental compilation on
a class while instances of it exist, then the game is won. The 
rest is a matter of preference or religion,
in my view. 

Best Regards from the Land o Lakes,
DRS



> But I agree that Java is a good thing, even if it might
> compete with Smalltalk to some degree.  I think that for
> a variety of reasons (syntax, static typing, ...) Java
> is much more geared to compete with C++, and my hope is
> that it will supplant C++ to a large degree as time goes
> on.  This could be a greate boon to everyone, Smalltalkers
> very much included.
>
