Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!killer!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: What is B&D? (Re: Bondage and Discipline Languages)
Message-ID: <2670@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 9 Jan 89 14:49:19 GMT
References: <8540@megaron.arizona.edu> <2630@ficc.uu.net> <13293@cup.portal.com> <5795@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 18

In article <5795@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, rjh@cs.purdue.EDU (Bob Hathaway) writes:
> Lets please stop using the term B&D languages, this is a bad
> analogy and a heavily biased opinion.  Maybe I can't adequately 
> express classes or model abstractions in expression-based 
> language X and feel similarly constrained.

I don't think anyone's using "B&D" to refer to object-oriented languages.
B&D refers to strictly type-checked languages that really don't have
any other features to distinguish them from the run-of-the-mill weakly
typed language. Pascal is the common example. 

Are you using the phrase "dynamically typed" to refer to object-oriented
languages? I haven't run into this phrase before, and it's quite evocative.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.   `-_-'
Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net.                 'U`
Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.