Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.ada
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!world!edwards
From: edwards@world.std.com (Jonathan Edwards)
Subject: Re: Has C++ had its day?
Message-ID: <DArFsK.4Io@world.std.com>
Organization: IntraNet, Inc.
References: <3q7tb1$1ct@holly.csv.warwick.ac.uk> <dewar.804000976@gnat> <3shs72$5hf@News1.mcs.com> <dewar.804032517@gnat>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 03:17:08 GMT
Lines: 28
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:33639 comp.lang.smalltalk:25015 comp.lang.ada:31727

In article <dewar.804032517@gnat>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:

[ Static vs. dynamic typing]
> This
>point has been argued since the start of programming languages, but I think
>that it is largely decided in favor of static typing at this stage, and I
>see no new arguments that would justify reevaluating this decision.

Hardly a settled matter.

Note that much interest these days is being invested in distributed
inter-language object models, such as CORBA, OLE, SOM, etc.
All of them are dynamically typed!
And for good reason: there are fundamental things you may want to do with
objects where typeing can not be settled at some arbitrary global 
compile time. The world is not a single program.

Let me give one example: database access. A dynamically created query can
not be typed at compile time. This is no sweat for dynamically typed
languages. Statically typed languages completely break down, and must
layer a complete (dynamic) database type system on top of their native one.


-- 
Jonathan Edwards				edwards@intranet.com
IntraNet, Inc					617-527-7020
One Gateway Center				FAX: 617-527-6779
Newton, MA 02158
