<html><head></head><body>
<p><br/>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/9/20 5:59 AM, Ronie Salgado wrote:<br/>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAH_rT_oBc3COktH07YZJrx=SQDA=UmtBtJSJ+id6E1KkenUWWA@mail.gmail.com"><font size="+2"><b>The point of this is that the <i>language safety
net</i> is not enough</b></font>, and in fact it could
actually be dangerous because it can instill a false sense of
safeness. </blockquote>
<p>I totally agree! This is precisely the foundation of language
politics in the Smalltalk world, if I may attempt to speak for
everyone! ;) The necessity for proven program safety are
sufficient unit tests. There is no other way to detect the errors
that matter other than making test assertions. As you said "the
language safety net is not enough", whereas robust unit testing
can prove the program works correctly. This means that
early-binding type systems are an onerous requirement and a
complete waste of time as far as ensuring program safety. As such
the readability of the code is enhanced through proper naming, not
the draconian type specifications and proofings. This late binding
feature, really unique to Smalltalk, in combination with a live
image makes for a completely different design experience. I
specify design as that is where serious errors are primarily
introduced, domain errors. Smalltalk empowers the designer to
address those errors. Perhaps others could share what about
late-binding is a positive for them, in Squeak?<br/>
<br/>
Getting a #doesNotUnderstand: exception is sufficient to detect a
type protocol issue.<br/>
</p>
<p>Another option for you is perhaps you can come up with a Pony
bytecode encoder set and run Pony on the Squeak Cog Spur vm...<br/>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Kindly,
Robert</pre>
</body></html>