[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the forward method [dynamic vs. static typing]
On Dec 9, 2003, at 12:26 AM, Anton van Straaten wrote:
> I don't see any of this as an argument for DT. In a language like
> C++, you
> can declare proxy classes to implement the interfaces you're
> interested in
> forwarding, and in the implementation of that proxy, the methods
> invoke the
> remoting code. That proxy implementation can be generated via macros,
> on the same interface definition that the actual classes use.
I wrote a distributed objects system in Io in a weekend with about 2
pages of codes - no wrappers, preprocessors, etc, required. How much
code did the C++ implementation take? How long did it take to write?
How complicated was the resulting system? Did new code need to be
written every time a new class was added? If not, was as a preprocessor
> The real disagreement we have is that I don't believe that even very
> systems, in practice, are as free of assumptions about types as you
> seem to
> imagine. Aside from these system-level examples of proxies and the
> can you think of common cases where you're sending messages to objects
> you don't know, even conceptually, which interface those messages
> belong to?
Take a look at NewtonScript's inheritance system. GUI view objects
would use their parent slots to (often) delegate unimplemented messages
to their superviews. The result is both a powerful inheritance system
and never knowing who might end up handling the message.
> You're recognizing the value of static type
> systems for catching type errors involving certain kinds of values, but
> denying its value for catching errors involving other kinds of values.
> you sure you've analyzed that correctly?
Yes, writing a wrong value to a variable in a strongly/dynamically
typed system is generally far easier to trace than writing the wrong
value to a random memory location. At least in my experience.