> I've a lot of respect for Dr. Kay, but history has shown him to be wrong on this point: strong static typing and binding things as early as possible is how ro

> I've a lot of respect for Dr. Kay, but history has shown him to be wrong on this point: strong static typing and binding things as early as possible is how robust systems are built and how errors are minimized. Could you expand on this? I don't see how late binding is incompatible with the robustness that static typing provides. In a traditional (C/++/#/Java) OOP setting, virtual methods and dynamic method dispatch allow for late-binding of method names to behavior based on run-time type specializations, but you still have the static compile-time guarantee that a method with the appropriate name and type signature will exist. This seems to me like it has the same robustness as an early-bound model, bounded only by the sophistication of the type system. Do you consider it qualitatively less late-bound than the message-passing paradigm, or am I missing something?