The arguments in your linked article are inaccurate. For example: the Refactoring Browser described in "A Refactoring Tool for Smalltalk"(at http://st-www.cs.ui

The arguments in your linked article are inaccurate. For example: the Refactoring Browser described in "A Refactoring Tool for Smalltalk"(at http://st-www.cs.uiuc.edu/users/droberts/tapos.pdf http://st-www.cs.uiuc.edu/users/droberts/tapos.pdf ), was capable of determining which sends of a renamed message were to the class on which it is to be renamed by analysis of the program's dynamic behavior. There's of course a limitation on this. To quote the paper: "The major drawback to this style of refac- toring is that the analysis is only as good as your test suite. If there are pieces of code that are not executed, they will never be analyzed, and the refactoring will not be completed for that par- ticular section of code. "