Re: imperative, and functional, and oo, ...
Posted: Jul 11, 2007 3:11 PM
> > The difference with this, though, is that the base
> > language just looks like a dynamically typed language.
> > should be complete in the sense that you can imagine it
> > executing and see the complete algorithm. The
> > in another file would really act as constraints which
> > disallow certain conditions at compile or load time.
> > would not add functionality.
> I guess when I look at your example, I have to question
> that. For example, you specify that successors and words
> are hash-based dictionaries. A hash-based dictionary can
> have subtle differences in behavior from a sorted
> dictionary especially depending on the types being placed
> in it. In general, any polymorphic language will allow a
> given operation to behave in different ways. So
> specifying the type could change the code especially since
> there would be nothing to prevent the developer from
> exploiting polymorphism in this way.
Yes, there are two different aspects in that code. If you specify the type for a created object, all of the options are open. You can do anything (it's like generics in that respect). But, if you add a type to a reference, you're constraining the type of objects that can be referred to by it. Not very easy to add functionality that way.