On 8/28/07, Fabio Filasieno <fabio.filasieno at 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