1. 10
  1.  

  2. 2

    I’m submitting this just to see what people like @patrickdlogan say about it. My concept here is we go with whatever professional users of Smalltalk (esp commercial ones) were doing for QA plus gradual typing where one can selectively use types to drive test generation and/or performance enhancements. I’m also still a fan of Design-by-Contract which might require strong types but who knows what we’ll learn over time.

    1. 2

      The beauty of Design By Contract is that it is applicable in all languages. Also it is independent of the type system, although some type systems can do more to ensure conformance statically.

      The beauty of Smalltalk is that it is “tool rich” and a gradual or optional type system can be just one more tool in the belt without burdening the interactiveness of the Smalltalk programming experience.

      1. 1

        can be just one more tool in the belt without burdening the interactiveness of the Smalltalk programming experience

        I like that concept as a differentiator for it. Most mature 3GL’s still can’t compete on that with competition mainly being scripting languages slower than Smalltalk or non-imperative languages average developer will find weird.