From: Arthur Chance <{spamtrap}@...> Date: 2003-10-10T01:17:05+09:00 Subject: Re: von Rossum on Strong vs. Weak Typing Seth Kurtzberg writes: > On Wednesday 26 February 2003 01:21 pm, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote: > > Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:10:44 +0900, > pisze: > > > Strong versus Weak Typing > > > A Conversation with Guido van Rossum, Part V > > > by Bill Venners with Frank Sommers > > > February 10, 2003 > > > > > > http://www.artima.com/intv/strongweak.html > > > > It's a pity that people judge about static typing by seeing only > > C++ and Java. > > > > Where is OCaml? Haskell? Eiffel? They don't have mentioned problems > > with generics, and languages with Hindley-Milner typing (OCaml, > > Haskell, SML, Clean) require much less changes than explicitly-typed > > languages when the type of something which is just passed down > > is changed. > > Very true. In my opinion adding Hindley-Milner typing to Ruby would > be a huge gain in reliability. As far as I understand it (which isn't that far), adding Hindley-Milner type inferencing to an OO language with super/sub-type relationships is at least difficult if not impossible. For a take on adding OO to a type inferenced language (SML) rather than adding type inferencing to an OO language take a look at the Moby site: http://moby.cs.uchicago.edu/ -- 2, 3, 3 & 37: the Prime Factors of the Beast.