I agree with Eric that some future programming environments will
probably provide and encourage optional types + type inference. This
doesn't necessarily contrast with late dynamic binding à la Smalltalk.
If types are an entangled part of the language, like in virtually any
statically typed programming language, it's hard to evolve them while
maintaining backward compatibility with older code. This is one reason
why a type system is perhaps best defined as an additional, optional
component of a development environment. It is then up to the programmer
to choose whether to use types and at which stage. Besides, optional
pluggable type systems can evolve independently and perhaps even cohabit
with others at the same time.
With a sensible blend between type annotations and inference and between
the language core and and a pluggable typing system, types should almost
never hurt, while providing more benefits than costs. Sure, it all
depends on how deeply they are enforced at all levels and phases of
programming and how they are used. No doubts that in a complex and
pervasive typing system as in C++, they are a real pain during the early
phases of development and a burden at later stages, and make it harder
to evolve software.
When types are perceived simply as a means, not an end, they provide a
really useful and well exploitable tool.
Greetings
Raffaello
On 2017-05-09 16:17, Eric Velten de Melo wrote:
I think he forgets to mention Haskell, which is probably the reason
behind the shift of Swift towards optional values (Option type in
Scala, Maybe type in Haskell). You can't talk about modern type system
without talking about Haskell, Monads and Algebraic Data Types (Maybe
is a monad).
I don't believe the future is dynamic typing, I believe it is type
inference and optional typing. There is no need to be radical about
it. One great sadly forgotten example of this is Strongtalk, which was
rumored to be the fastest implementation of Smalltalk ever made (I
don't know how it compares to the latest Pharo VM, though) and
included an optional strong type system (http://www.strongtalk.org/).
Strongtalk team was bought by Sun before they could release the
language and their advancements in virtual machine development were
taken by the Java Virtual Machine. It is one of my dreams to see
Strongtalk back into action or maybe a version of Self with optional
typing, but I unfortunately lack the required skills and time to do so.
2017-05-09 10:26 GMT-03:00 Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com
<mailto:b...@openinworld.com>>:
Fantastic article. Very well rounded. I particularly liked
"Meanwhile the Smalltalk programmers were scratching their heads
wondering what the big deal was. You see, their language was also
strongly typed; but their types were undeclared. In Smalltalk
types were enforced at runtime."
and..."You see, the Smalltalk programmers had solved the missile
problem in their own unique way. They invented a discipline. Today
we call that discipline: Test Driven Development. ... You see,
when a Java programmer gets used to TDD, they start asking
themselves a very important question: “Why am I wasting time
satisfying the type constraints of Java when my unit tests are
already checking everything?”
cheers -ben
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:49 PM, askoh <as...@askoh.com
<mailto:as...@askoh.com>> wrote:
This is a quote from Bob Martin of "Clean Code" fame. Enjoy,
Aik-Siong Koh
http://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2016/05/01/TypeWars.html
<http://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2016/05/01/TypeWars.html>
--
View this message in context:
http://forum.world.st/Smalltalkers-will-eventually-win-So-says-this-old-C-programmer-tp4945895.html
<http://forum.world.st/Smalltalkers-will-eventually-win-So-says-this-old-C-programmer-tp4945895.html>
Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
