[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: the forward method [dynamic vs. static typing]

On 2003-11-20T18:56:20-0800, Steve Dekorte wrote:
> So we can't have the functionality of forward without serious problems 
> for ST?

I don't know -- what's "the functionality of forward"?  You'll need to
specify what it means in a system-independent way in order for that
question to make sense.  It seems to me that doing so would involve
making precise what you mean by "object", "method", "respond", etc.
One way to do so is to specify a simple language that is as small as
possible (so as to not disqualify every non-Smalltalk system) yet
contains all the features you care about, and describe how computation
proceeds in the language.

If by "the functionality of forward" you just mean "the functionality of
forward in Smalltalk", then the answer is trivial -- Smalltalk doesn't
have static typing, so static typing has serious problems in Smalltalk,
namely nonexistence.


Edit this signature at http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ken/sig
"vi has two modes: one where it beeps and one where it doesn't"

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature