Andres,

> If the code isn't clear enough to show the relationships between
> classes throughout the system, the problem is the code.  Why should a
> type system save us the trouble of writing clear code that can be
> shared with others and understood by others?  What happened to the
> idea of a system that can be understood by a single person?

Okay, so where precisely did I claim that one would need static types to 
write clear code? (for that matter where did I refer to code quality at 
all?) And what does this have to do with a single person understanding a 
system? Are you claiming that a statically typed system couldn't possibly be 
understood by a single person?

> Smalltalk is powerful because it does NOT have many "features".  It
> should be kept that way.

Well you know my opinion on that, don't you?! ;-) Smalltalk ~~ Squeak.

Cheers,
  - Andreas

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andres Valloud" <sqrmax at cox.net>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" 
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 12:08 PM
Subject: Re[2]: Squeak-dev Digest, Vol 22, Issue 20


> Hello Andreas,
>
> Friday, October 15, 2004, 5:00:07 PM, you wrote:
>
>>> How would you detect a missing method in a dynamic system? Aside from
>>> the trivial case of there being no method at all of the appropriate name
>>> (which Smalltalks detect already) what would you do?
> AR> Well, this is where it gets interesting and why I think we need a
> AR> static type system in Squeak. [...] And suddenly, the whole type
> AR> system becomes a meta-layer for expressing some of the
> AR> relationships between classes throughout the system and that can
> AR> be useful for many different areas.
>
> This is just a solution looking for a problem.
>
> You can certainly find all such silly mistakes by spending time in
> acceptance and unit tests first - which, besides, should be written
> anyway.
>
> If the code isn't clear enough to show the relationships between
> classes throughout the system, the problem is the code.  Why should a
> type system save us the trouble of writing clear code that can be
> shared with others and understood by others?  What happened to the
> idea of a system that can be understood by a single person?
>
> Unfortunately, to me, this sounds very similar to a topic heavily
> discussed previously - that of frameworks being too closely
> intertwined, a.k.a. the Monolithic Image.  Things have not changed.
>
> Could that meta-layer be an existing implementation of the declarative
> approach to Smalltalk?  The ones that come to mind don't need types
> to work.
>
> Smalltalk is powerful because it does NOT have many "features".  It
> should be kept that way.
>
> Andres.
>
>