Xref: utzoo comp.object:3309 comp.lang.misc:7586
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!ee.udel.edu
From: new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: A Hard Problem for Static Type Systems
Message-ID: <51669@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 23 Apr 91 20:39:41 GMT
References: <1991Apr20.010347.28984@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu
Followup-To: comp.lang.misc
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 15
Nntp-Posting-Host: estelle.ee.udel.edu

I think it is important to remember the differences between dynamic
typing and dynamic binding.  Many of the arguments in this thread get
confused because the distinction is not made clear and some systems
have one without the other while other systems intertwine both.  For
example, Hermies has dynamic typing (via polymorph) without dynamic
binding (in the normal OO sense).  C++ has some limited dynamic binding
without dynamic typing.  Smalltalk intermixes the dynamic typing and
the dynamic binding semantically, muddying the waters.

Personally, I think both are necessary, but for different tasks.
-- 
--- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware ---
----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, FDTs -----
     +=+=+ My time is very valuable, but unfortunately only to me +=+=+
+=+ Nails work better than screws, when both are driven with screwdrivers +=+