On 3 August 2013 20:53, kilon <[email protected]> wrote: > btc wrote >> btc@ > >> wrote: >> >> Kilon, I agree with most of you writeup, except that I think Smalltalk >> has types - except the types are not associated with variables, rather >> they are associated with objects. This aligns with Igor's comment "in >> smalltalk, assignment is not copying value, but changing the reference". > > Actually I also mostly agree with Igor point. If I am not mistake we agree > on the fact that smalltalk has no types. > > The only thing I would not agree, if my assumption is correct here, is that > Igor appears here implying that smalltalk somehow is special to assign > values by reference. If this assumption of mine is correct then I do > disagree strongly , its actually a very common practice. Python also > implement this, Lisp does, ruby and an array of dynamic type languages. I am > not so sure about C and C++ but since they use pointers its a moot point > anyway. > > I explain this concept in my book about python that I have published in > blenderwiki , section "Reference" which can be found here -> > http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:Kilon/Python_book_of_magic/05.Dictionaries > Sure, i didn't meant that this is unique to smalltalk.
> However this concept is implementation specific and not language specific. > Its obviously a massive diffirence because a coder rarely worries about the > implementation itself the same way a user of an OS does not worry how and > why an OS does the things it does, he only care about what it does. > Well, a language should define how assignment works, so it can be implemented. And apparently assignment by copying value won't fit for smalltalk. > Also I am not sure how that prove the existence of types, for me it does > not, it only describes how values are assigned. What prevents you from > assigning by reference typeless data ? > > Unless once again we talk about how pharo itself implement this and somehow > uses its own internal type system. The question that remain why I the coder > should care about this , if at language level Smalltalk is typeless. > > Maybe Igor can clarify this more to make a more clear picture what happens > at implementation level. But at language level yes I have seen nothing that > proves the existence of types inside Smalltalk unless we treat types in a > very vague kind way which for me it just defeats their purpose. > I think that too.. To me it looks like an attempt to describe the world with favorite tool - thermometer. > I also agree on the remark of Duck Typing , it definitely smells like > smalltalk , but once again the terminology is failed because it implies a > type system. > > Once more I have to stress the importance of dichotomy between language > specification and language implementation. Types obviously touch both areas > but not necessarily for same reasons. > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Smalltalk-strongly-typed-tp4701894p4702028.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
