Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object
From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)
Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better!
In-Reply-To: Alan Lovejoy's message of Thu, 30 Jan 1997 02:12:40 -0800
Message-ID: <JSA.97Jan30214043@alexandria>
Sender: news@organon.com (news)
Organization: Organon Motives, Inc.
References: <JSA.97Jan16141937@alexandria> <E44u82.6uB@syd.csa.com.au>
	<mheaney-ya023280001601972303180001@news.ni.net>
	<32DF458F.4D5C@concentric.net> <32DF94DC.6FF8@watson.ibm.com>
	<32DFD972.37E4@concentric.net> <5bphq4$5js@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
	<32E05FAF.47BA@concentric.net> <5buodl$bci@boursy.news.erols.com>
	<32E2FEC7.2F7B@concentric.net> <5bvncj$gqg$1@A-abe.resnet.ucsb.edu>
	<32E47B4B.56D9@concentric.net> <5c4fr0$27j@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
	<32E67751.4AFC@parcplace.com> <5caqo5$k5l@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <32E
	<5ce8t3$6gv@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <32EEC23E.4F1A@concentric.net>
	<5cmv1v$13b@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <32F07418.29FC@concentric.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 02:40:43 GMT
Lines: 38
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!portc02.blue.aol.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!metro.atlanta.com!news.new-york.net!andromeda.vec.net!news.gs.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!uucp3.uu.net!alexandria.organon.com!alexandria!jsa
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:244565 comp.lang.smalltalk:50580 comp.lang.eiffel:18039 comp.lang.ada:56929 comp.object:60635

In article <32F07418.29FC@concentric.net> Alan Lovejoy <alovejoy@concentric.net> writes:


> It is my contention that most of the value of "static typing" arises
> precisely from the usage of "type constraints" as what are
> essentially "assignment compatibility groups." Especially in a
> language such as Java (for example), where all variables are
> physically pointers (or size-compatible with pointers).

Well, you've just moved into Humpty Dumpty land.  Such "groups" are
exactly how one facet of typing is defined/works in class based
systems.  So why invent yet another term?


> There are other ways to enforce useful invariants and constraints
> than using a type system.  Smalltalk is very good at constructing
> such constraint-enforcement mechanisms and abstractions.

I don't think anyone would/has disagreed with this.


> True. But the hypertext-like nature of Smalltalk source code browsing is
> absolutely essential in dealing with the problem you mention.  This is 
> onle example of what I meant when I said "you compensate in other ways."

But this sort of thing is widely available to statically checked
languages as well (and has been for some time) in various
sophisticated IDEs.  So this is a wash.


/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com

