Aaron Lanterman wrote:

>As part of my curiosity about different languages sparked by Squeak, I've
>been reading a lot about Eiffel, and wondered what you Squeakers thought
>of it. It has real dynamic binding, but it doesn't seem like programming
>it it would be any fun at all, the way Squeak of Scheme or MATLAB can be
>fun. Eiffel reminds me of an overly stern schoolteacher.
>
>  
>

In the early 90's, I read much of Bertrand Meyer's writings, the 
inventor of Eiffel.  I was very disappointed in his views.  He was most 
definitely in the static language camp.  As an example, here is an 
extract from a specific post of his in 1994 in the comp.object newsgroup:

...

 Q1. Is multiple inheritance necessary?

 Q2. Is static typing desirable?

 Q3. If multiple inheritance is included, should it be done the
     Eiffel way?

Mr. Reddy appears to answer ``yes'' to Q1 and Q3; I clearly
share these answers, and also answer``yes'' to Q2. Q1, however, is of
a different nature from Q2 and Q3.
...



He had what I thought were some innovative ideas for static language 
"type safety" for Eiffel, and I most definitely arrived at the 
conclusion that of the static languages, Eiffel was the most technically 
sound language available at the time.  But I did not share his views 
about "type safety". 

Although Eiffel has likely undergone changes since then, I also have 
absolutely no interest in Eiffel, either then or now.

Nevin


-- 
Nevin Pratt
Bountiful Baby
http://www.bountifulbaby.com
(801) 992-3137