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

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

On 2003-11-26T05:24:56-0800, Steve Dekorte wrote:
> I'd suggest looking into how much easier it is 
> to implement distributed objects in a language with forwarding.

This sentence presupposes that it is much easier to implement
distributed objects in a language with forwarding.  This claim is hardly
defined, much less argued or proven, here or in a reference.

> C++ doesn't even compile the method names into the executable, so
> forwarding is impossible at the level of native C++ message calls.

This reasoning is unsound.  For example, it is easy to implement
Smalltalk without compiling anything into any executable, yet according
to you, Smalltalk supports forwarding.

> Without good empirical data, we don't know what the ideal system is so 
> doesn't seem prudent to dismiss either position (even in it's extreme) 
> as simply the result of ignorance or capriciousness (as was done in the 
> post that started this thread).

I assume you are referring to Shriram's post.  It does nothing of the
sort you suggested.  Specifically, it does not dismiss any position
regarding how useful static or dynamic typing is.

Edit this signature at http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ken/sig
Tax the rich!
new journal Physical Biology: http://physbio.iop.org/
What if All Chemists Went on Strike? (science fiction):

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature