🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <546@watmum.UUCP> gvcormack@watmum.UUCP (Gordon V. Cormack) writes:
>> I have recently noticed few messages related to adding type mechanisms
>> to Smalltalk.  I fail to see the appeal in adding types to Smalltalk.
>
>So I am 100% behind any attempt to introduce static type checking
>(which would guarantee that the error "don't understand xxx" would
>never occur), provided that it does not destroy the polymorphic
>capabilities of the language.

Please!  Don't take away my "does not understand" notifier!  This is
vastly different than your typical C complie time message: "line 24:
type mismatch".  Chances are you've arrived at this notifier as a
result of either "perform:"ing into a dictionary or by not using the
browser.  Static type checking would do little for the former, and
Smalltalk programming experience quickly cures the latter.  (Compare
with a new C programmer who doesn't use sections 2 and 3 of the
manual.)

I've recently become convinced there is *one* use for type checking in
Smalltalk: when Smalltalk is being interfaced with type checked
languages!
-- 
:::::: Artificial   Intelligence   Machines   ---   Smalltalk   Project ::::::
:::::: Jan Steinman		Box 1000, MS 60-405	(w)503/685-2956 ::::::
:::::: tektronix!tekecs!jans	Wilsonville, OR 97070	(h)503/657-7703 ::::::