Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!qiclab.scn.rain.com!slc.com!servio!servio!aland
From: aland@servio.slc.com (Alan Darlington)
Subject: Re: Is having untyped data good?
Message-ID: <1996Feb20.212149.6096@slc.com>
Sender: news@slc.com (USENET News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: servio
Organization: GemStone Systems, Inc., Beaverton OR, USA
References: <boidd-1402962231300001@kelp36.cruzio.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 21:21:49 GMT
Lines: 19

boidd@cruzio.com (Ethan Phelps-Goodman) writes:
> I have been looking at several oodls and I heard that smalltalk variables
> are untyped (by this I mean that they aren't assigned a type when created,
> parameters don't specify what type of input they need, etc.) As a C++
> programmer that sounds horrible. Having used smalltalk, what do you think
> about it?
> 
> boidd@cruzio.com

Having come from a programming language similar to C, I shared your
horror when I first started learning Smalltalk.  Eleven years later
(and with 3 commercial Smalltalk products under my belt :-), I find
that I don't miss compile-time type checking a bit!!

  Cheers,
  Alan
    (standard disclaimer)


