<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><br></div><div><br>On Sep 30, 2011, at 1:50 PM, "Jecel Assumpcao Jr." <<a href="mailto:jecel@merlintec.com">jecel@merlintec.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<span style="display:none"> </span>
<div id="ygrp-text">
<p>hich we still use today) I<br>Given how dynamic inheritance is actually used (to switch among a small<br>
number of constant objects rather than point to arbitrary ones) I came<br>
up with an implementation were an object with a dynamic parent would<br>
have several maps, one for each parent (up to five, for example). When<br>
you assign to the parent slot, you switch maps as a side effect.<br>
<br>
> A while back I gave a keynote at OOPSLA on the role of paradox in language<br>
> design.In general, I believe that better type systems are worse--depending<br>
> on the context. One loses the power of ambiguity. However, if you are<br>
> sending code to Mars, it's a good tradeoff. Anyway, I'll have to read the paper.<br>
<br>
I watched that talk - you had some static typing people grinding their<br>
teeth :-) Back in 2003 Java was at its zenith and stuff like Ruby and<br>
Javascript were still being ignored. By a coincidence, I had started<br>
using "sending code to Mars" in the mid 1990s as an example were<br>
traditional software engineering practices would be a good idea in<br>
contrast to other applications with GUIs where you might get better<br>
results through exploratory programming (we didn't have the term "agile<br>
programming" yet, though we already had some of the methods like Scrum).<br>
<br>
-- Jecel<br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
<!-- end group email -->
</div></blockquote></body></html>