Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!newstand.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!uucp3.uu.net!alexandria.organon.com!alexandria!jsa
From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)
Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better!
In-Reply-To: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu's message of 23 Jan 1997 19:19:45 GMT
Message-ID: <JSA.97Jan27164217@alexandria>
Followup-To: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object
Sender: news@organon.com (news)
Organization: Organon Motives, Inc.
References: <32E67751.4AFC@parcplace.com> <5c8dkh$2e0@news1.ucsd.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:42:17 GMT
Lines: 30
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:243514 comp.lang.smalltalk:50136 comp.lang.eiffel:17795 comp.lang.ada:56612 comp.object:60402

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

