Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!ipso!runxtsa!timm
From: timm@runxtsa.runx.oz.au (Tim Menzies)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Do we really need types in OOPL's?
Summary: What the hell, I'll say something too....
Message-ID: <2444@runxtsa.runx.oz.au>
Date: 17 Oct 90 08:08:12 GMT
References: <60700003@inmet> <1426@media01.UUCP> <1990Oct9.190813.23402@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: RUNX Unix Timeshare.  Sydney, Australia.
Lines: 25

There was a contracter working with me once and I asked his opinion about
strongly typed languages. This guy had been around, seen a few disasters.
I said I was worried about using Smalltalk since it didn't have strong typing,
that bugs coold lurk in the system till after delivery, etc. etc. I said that
for big projects, I'd prefer something typed.

He exploded. To say he disagreed would be an understatement. In his view,
the thing that killed big projects had nothing to do with typing. I never
actually got a clear view of what he thought actually did kill big
projects, but in his experience, typing/ non-typing just wasn't a 
determining factor in the long term viability of a software package.

So I kept using Smalltalk. No problems yet. Currently, I have a name as
being able to deliver solutions faster than others. Of course, this
reputation only lasts till it stops, but right now I'd recommend Smalltalk/
Actor for delivering solutions to business problems in short periods
of time.

Just thought I'd type that in, strongly.

--
 _--_|\  Tim Menzies (timm@runxtsa.oz)         #include usual.disclaimer
/      \ HiSoft Expert Systems Group,          -----------------------------
\_.--._/ 2-6 Orion Rd Lane Cove, NSW, 2066     "If its only just ok, then it
      v  02 9297729(voice),61 2 4280200(fax)    probably isn't."