[MUD-Dev] Spoofs

Adam Martin ya_hoo_com at yahoo.com
Thu Sep 27 09:31:34 New Zealand Standard Time 2001

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean K" <sean at hoth.ffwd.cx>

> IMO this is Java's primary failing.  It's statically typed but
> dynamically bound.  Smalltalk went the right way by making both
> dynamic.

> C++ templates provide a similar feature to Smalltalk's typing but
> at compile time.  Between this and optional dynamic binding
> through virtual functions, C++ can accomplish everything that
> Smalltalk can, but it's not always as strightforward.

What precisely do you mean by "bound"?

And would you be happy with Java's static typing if it also provided
true polymorphism (I'm thinking along the lines of ML
type-checking), rather than the half-hearted hacky polymorphism that
it actually has? (As is probably obvious, I'm really not happy about
the state of polymorphism in Java, or lack thereof)

Adam M
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list