At 3:11 PM -0400 4/26/98, Alan C. Kay wrote:

[snip]
>The whole issue is similar to that of types. Not having anything (like
>LISP) >puts one too much in a kind of assembler.
[snip]

I'm sure this was off the cuff, and I really don't want to get into the
"what is it to be a typed language" debate (even more than I don't want to
get into the philosophy of math/comp sci debate; even though the claim that
running a program on a computer is a formal method sends horrified chills
up and down my spine ;), but to whatever degree Smalltalk is typed, it's
the case that most folks claim that (modern) lisps are at least as typed.
(I.e., the objects have types, but the variables can label objects of any
type, except when you put type hints in, etc,.)

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.