On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:21:23AM -0400, Yanni Chiu wrote:
> Ramon Leon wrote:
> >>It seems to me that adding strong typing (or whatever the correct
> >>term is) to Squeak would chip away a one more perceived "deficiency",
> >>and win some political points in the "language wars". That should
> >>end the arguments: we've got both.
> >
> >
> >Only if you consider manifest types to be a good thing, most 
> >Smalltalkers don't.
> 
> I see it purely as a marketing issue. If typing is something
> that's blocking wider adoption (whether justified or not),
> and we have a way to fix it, then just do it and move on.
> But it's possible that we won't have to, if the mindset has
> changed (as Michael points out in his message).
> 
> On a similar vein, a C++ based VM (and the Strongtalk mystique)
> might have some marketing points (but, once again, don't sacrifice
> scarce developer resources). But the message might just end up:
> "we now have the Smalltalk technology that the Java VM
> implementers bought and adapted (nearly 10 years ago)."
> 
> Another point about typing:  would the typing information
> be useful for improving the developer tools (e.g. refactoring
> could be more precise)?

I just stumbled across RoelTyper, a type checker for smalltalk:
http://decomp.ulb.ac.be/roelwuyts/smalltalk/roeltyper/
http://www.squeaksource.com/RoelTyper.html

-- 
Matthew Fulmer