protocols, inheritance and polymorphism

[Donn Cave]

Quoth "Dan Perl" <danperl at rogers.com>:
| "Donn Cave" <donn at u.washington.edu> wrote in message 
| news:donn-D778C1.17100223112004 at gnus01.u.washington.edu...
| > I'm very sympathetic to the advantages of static typing
| > (NB, I read here that Python is strongly, though dynamically,
| > typed.  It is not statically typed.)  Rather than embrace
| > subtype polymorphism through inheritance, however, I see it
| > as evidence that no one has figured out how to make static
| > typing really work with OOP.  There has to be a better way
| > to do it.
|
| You're right, I should have said statically typed instead of strongly typed.
|
| But did you really mean "no one has figured out how to make *static* typing 
| really work with OOP" or did you mean *dynamic* typing?

Static.  I figure dynamic & OOP get along fine -- as Smalltalk showed,
along with I believe Objective C and of course Python.  Static typing
and Functional Programming seem to go hand in glove, cf. Haskell type
classes.  Static OOP seems to invite inelegant and unsound compromises.

	Donn Cave, donn at u.washington.edu