4 ms·
> static/explicit typing, which replaces the need for many of Smalltalk's features For example? Which Smalltalk features do compile-time type declarations rep
by igouy 10mo ago
> static/explicit typing, which replaces the need for many of Smalltalk's features
For example?
Which Smalltalk features do compile-time type declarations replace?
- blauditore 10mo agoDynamic inspection of an object's API? I think it's a very common thing for programmers to explore a type's API on-the-go (as we can't memorize every function name). With static typing, that information is known before run time and can be immediately displayed by the IDE in the form of auto-complete. In dynamically typed languages, the most reliable way to achieve the same is by running and inspecting it, which is basically how people work in Smalltalk from what I've seen.
- igouy 10mo agoThings are a little confusing when we can both use the Smalltalk IDE with or without running our stuff. Code exploration tools are available before "running and inspecting" our stuff. We read the protocols and code without "running and inspecting" our stuff. It is true that static types provide more-precise more-automated identification of implementations and call sites.