[_pius]

No, static types don't catch everything. But they are desirable if they catch anything at all.

I hear you, but come on now, static types as a replacement for unit tests? I hear they cure cancer too!

In all seriousness, optional type safety sounds pretty good to me as long as there aren't any major tradeoffs involved.

I can imagine development methodologies that demand you statically type everything before you release to production. This way, you get fast duck typing development and the security of type safety for the maintainer.

I might be misunderstanding, but wouldn't this require you to rewrite your code before a production release? Wouldn't you then lose a great deal of the leverage of using a freedom language?

[stcredzero]

I hear you, but come on now, static types as a replacement for unit tests?

Is this a deliberate troll? Failure of reading comprehension? Where do I ever advocate static types as a replacement for Unit Tests? Why would a Smalltalker ever do that!?

I might be misunderstanding, but wouldn't this require you to rewrite your code before a production release?

There's a big difference between inserting a bunch of tags like <Integer> at the end of the development cycle, probably guided by a coding tool, possibly using Hindley-Milner type inference to automate part of the process, and rewriting. (See Haskell)

Did you not know about these sorts of tools? Are you unfamiliar with Strongtalk type annotation syntax? Please give an example that would require something as extensive as a rewrite.

EDIT: To clarify, Strongtalk type annotations are completely optional. Take almost any code, remove the type annotations, and it will run exactly the same. They are also always just the Class Name. In Strongtalk as in Smalltalk, evenything is an Object, so all types are simply Class Names. No complex types at all.

[_pius]

Failure of reading comprehension?

Whoa, what are you talking about? Ironically, I think you're the one failing at reading comprehension. Read the thread. Clearly my "static types as a replacement for unit tests" comment was referring to the post I'd responded to initially. It had nothing to do whatsoever with what you said. I was essentially acknowledging your point, but saying that some people seem to advocate static typing for everything. Calm down bro.

Did you not know about these sorts of tools? Are you unfamiliar with Strongtalk type annotation syntax?

Actually, no I didn't, and yes I'm unfamiliar with it ... that's why I asked you for more info.

the rest of what you said

This is all interesting to me. I'm only lightly familiar with Smalltalk and Strongtalk. I was asking for clarification because I really wasn't sure I knew enough about it. Again, no trolling intended ... no need to be defensive.

[stcredzero]

Ironically, I think you're the one failing at reading comprehension. Read the thread.

Read my posts! You're putting someone else's words into my mouth! (Ones which are uninformed and frequently used themselves to troll!) So, there should be an implicit assumption that every thread is diametrically opposed around the issue? And everyone who doesn't follow that assumption and inserts informative neutral concepts are "not paying attention?" I find that intellectually limiting, to put it kindly.

Calm down bro...I was asking for clarification because I really wasn't sure I knew enough about it. Again, no trolling intended ... no need to be defensive.

No, you were putting words into my mouth due to inattentive reading. I'm not being defensive. I'm going on the offensive. Being inattentive and putting words into someone else's mouth and being called on it is not your cue to tell them to mellow. In my book, it's time to demonstrate some intellectual integrity and apologize.

I thank you for your most illuminating reaction!