From http://object-arts.com/ http://object-arts.com/ "It’s fairly clear that huge systems cannot be created using static typing. It’s just not feasible to assu

From http://object-arts.com/ http://object-arts.com/ "It’s fairly clear that huge systems cannot be created using static typing. It’s just not feasible to assume that whenever a small type change is made, all other components that reference this type will be able to be recompiled." "cannot be made"? really? heh. "The World Wide Web is one such massive system that relies on dynamic binding at runtime in order to maintain flexibility and practicality. As we look to build increasingly large software systems we shouldn’t just rely on this one endeavour to validate Smalltalk’s rejection of static typing. In nature we find systems that are orders of magnitude larger than any of the software we have succeeded in building so far. A biological ecosystem is composed of many organisms, each of which is made up of organs, then cells, then organelles and macromolecules - all towering atop the fundamental building blocks of molecules and atoms. All of these subsystems are dynamically bound together. At each level, elements will handle valid messages from their neighbours and safely reject messages that are, for whatever reason, not understood. In nature there is no compile time validation. In nature there is no compiler." Sounds very kool-aid-ey to me.