Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watmum!rgatkinson
From: rgatkinson@watmum.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Dynamic Binding and Dynamic Type Checking
Message-ID: <799@watmum.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Jan-87 13:54:04 EST
Article-I.D.: watmum.799
Posted: Wed Jan 28 13:54:04 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Jan-87 04:47:32 EST
References: <4000001@nucsrl.UUCP> <3288@milano.UUCP>
Reply-To: rgatkinson@watmum.UUCP (Robert Atkinson)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 27

In article <412@apple.UUCP> lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein) writes:
>In article <459@watcgl.UUCP> kdmoen@watcgl.UUCP (Doug Moen) writes:
>>I agree that dynamic type checking is a problem.  I had an opportunity
>>to play with Alan Bornings "ThingLab" and Randy Smiths "Alternate Reality Kit".
>>These are both large applications written in Smalltalk.
>>I was able to cause both programs to seize up with "message not understood"
>>errors just by playing around.  Although Smalltalk is great for rapid
>>prototyping, it isn't suitable for programming large, *robust* applications,
>>because you can never be sure that you haven't found all the type errors.
>
>I am not sure if this is valid.  Aren't Thinglab and ARK just research
>projects and not finished applications?  There are a few commercial
>applicatiosn written in Smalltalk (e.g., the Humble expert system from
>Xerox).  It would be more meaningful to look at one of these and see how
>reliable it is.

Most indeed!  In fact, ARK is still in a state of constant evolution, so 
this kind of behavior is almost to be expected.  Humble, (and other
applications, such as the Analyst, both from Xerox Special Information
Systems), are much more stable and robust.  One might also consider
``applications'' like the Browser interface.  Such exceptions are
extremely rare here.


-- 
	-bob atkinson
	"I do not think, therefore I am a moustache." - J.P. Sartre, "Nausea"