Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!pdn!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Run-time Type Errors in Smalltalk Message-ID: <282580B4.1A91@tct.com> Date: 6 May 91 16:13:40 GMT References: <530@eiffel.UUCP> <1991Apr28.022234.287@odi.com> <2604@calmasd.Prime.COM> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 24 According to cpp@calmasd.Prime.COM (Chuck Peterson): >Consider that many of the languages users prefer, from novice to >theoretician, from Basic to Lisp and Smalltalk, are dynamically typed. I don't know about Mr. Peterson's experience, but the Basics I've used are all statically typed. For example, A is always a numeric value of some predetermined type, and A$ is always a string. Microsoft Basic adds suffixes: A! single precision, A# double precision, A% integer. (The concept of citing Basic in a comp.object article boggles the mind, doesn't it?) In any case, I doubt the relevance of novice preference. >[Dynamic typing] simplifies ad hoc experimenting, reduces code size >and manifest complexity, and makes polymorphism natural. True enough. But the reduction of "manifest complexity" is hardly a win if all that complexity is really still there, ready to bite the unwary user during execution. -- Brand X Industries Sentient and Semi-Sentient Being Resources Department: Because Sometimes, "Human" Just Isn't Good Enough [tm] Chip Salzenberg ,