Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!ucsd!hub.ucsb.edu!eiffel!bertrand From: bertrand@eiffel.UUCP (Bertrand Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Run-time checks, Compile time Checks, and reliability Keywords: type checking, high reliability, fault tolerance Message-ID: <528@eiffel.UUCP> Date: 15 Apr 91 03:52:56 GMT References: <1991Mar28.161307.6071@cbnewsh.att.com> <27F780E2.1872@tct.com> Organization: Interactive Software Engineering, Santa Barbara CA Lines: 26 From by objtch@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (Peter Goodall): [Quoting me] >> although it could make sense for a Smalltalk-like typeless language [PG's comment] > Variables in Smalltalk are untyped, Objects are. We could argue over what a > type i but I will assert that Smalltalk is strongly, typed at message send, > and I'mm not the only person to think so. It is fairly common to use ``typed'' for ``statically typed'' and ``untyped'' for ``dynamically typed''. Indeed, by ``untyped'' I meant dynamically typed. (I don't think anyone will argue that Smalltalk is statically typed; this discussion addresses static vs. dynamic typing.) By the way, ``untyped'' or ``dynamically typed'' is not an insult; just not everybody's cup of tea. Sorry for using a somewhat simplistic terminology. -- -- Bertrand Meyer Interactive Software Engineering Inc., Santa Barbara bertrand@eiffel.uucp