<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Great point, James. The difference in static checking between the two is part of that, too. I suspect I would like gradual typing (as in Grace). I would expect a library I used to be typed, while my own exploratory code would not be. Types for using your code, no types for writing mine.<br><br>- David (from iPad, typos likely)</div><div><br>On Jul 25, 2016, at 3:02 AM, James Noble <a href="mailto:kjx@mcs.vuw.ac.nz">kjx@mcs.vuw.ac.nz</a> [self-interest] <<a href="mailto:self-interest@yahoogroups.com">self-interest@yahoogroups.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<span style="display:none"> </span>
<div id="ygrp-text">
<p>> Great examples. But you omitted the source code.<br>
<br>
and this I think is one of the most significant cultural changes between Smalltalk and Java -- pretty much a generational change.<br>
<br>
Smalltalk people expected to read the source code, <br>
ditto for things like MacApp, ET++, MFC, all shipped<br>
with code and the expectation people would read it.<br>
The Lions book is another example. Software Tools.<br>
<br>
Then came Javadoc - and now people expect to be<br>
able to read only the documentation. I do it myself:<br>
read the code in Smalltalk or Self (or Grace):<br>
read the doc in C# or Java. <br>
<br>
a micro-paradigm shift if you will.<br>
<br>
James<br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
<!-- end group email -->
</div></blockquote></body></html>