Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dartvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!dartvax!chip
From: chip@dartvax.UUCP (Brig )
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Anti-CLU... Anti-Strong-Typing...
Message-ID: <411@dartvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Nov-83 19:17:50 EST
Article-I.D.: dartvax.411
Posted: Mon Nov 21 19:17:50 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Nov-83 04:18:36 EST
Organization: Dartmouth College
Lines: 23

Personally, I think that CLU and Alphard prove that "abstract types"
are a very clumsy idea.  Pascal began popularizing this trend, and
the arguments over how to patch up varying-length arrays (etc) has
still not ended.  Ada, of course, more of less solves the problem,
but look at how gargantuan and ugly it is!
 
Something went wrong with how types are defined, since when carried
to their logical conclusions they are clumsy and complicated.
 
The actor languages perhaps have a nicer idea of types, since
users can create their own types with somewhat less fuss than
in languages like CLU etc.  Still, I have not used Smalltalk
(eg) so I can't really say.
 
Can someone who uses actor languages regularly join the fray,
and say whether or not types work out well in them?
 
(Postscript--I do not advocate no-type-checking, as in Bliss
or some versions of C.  I just think that CLU and Alphard demonstrate
that taking Pascal-ish types to their logical conclusion shows
that the notion of types was not very well thought out...)
 
   Chip Elliott      ...decvax!dartvax!chip