On 8/28/07, Fabio Filasieno fabio.filasieno@gmail.com wrote:
There are quite some Phd powered hackers there, and I personally think that Smalltalk could win their love.
I seriously doubt it. Haskell programming is as much about programming to the typing system as it is functional programming [1] (possibly more). So switching to a dynamically typed system is highly unlikely. It's pretty unlikely that many of them would even accept such a system as viable at all.
Functional programmers typically think they don't need OO as well [2].
So if you truly believe that changing expressions that look like:
(((someObject message: 1) message: 2) message: 3)
to:
someObject message: 1 >>= message: 2 >>= message: 3
is going to overcome all those issues, and bring in all those PhD's.... well, it calls in your previous claim that your arguments are logical, etc. :)
[1] http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~dons/blog/2007/05/17#xmonad_part1b_zipper [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/noop.html