Path: news.daimi.aau.dk!news.uni-c.dk!sunic!sunic.sunet.se!trane.uninett.no!nac.no!Norway.EU.net!EU.net!gatech!sdd.hp.com!news1.best.com!news.best.com!tmb
From: tmb@concerto.best.com
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.python,comp.lang.sather,comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: Rapid Prototyping + statically-typed OOPLs?
Date: 12 Jul 1995 18:47:54 GMT
Organization: *
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <TMB.95Jul12104754@concerto.best.com>
References: <805548287snz@galacta.demon.co.uk>
Reply-To: tmb@best.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: tmb.vip.best.com
In-reply-to: "Dr. Rich Artym"'s message of Wed, 12 Jul 95 11:24:47 GMT
Xref: news.daimi.aau.dk comp.object:33401 comp.lang.beta:444 comp.lang.c++:128661 comp.lang.eiffel:9175 comp.lang.python:4975 comp.lang.sather:1912 comp.lang.smalltalk:24303

In article <805548287snz@galacta.demon.co.uk> "Dr. Rich Artym" <rartym@galacta.demon.co.uk> writes:
| The recent debacle about C hackers brought to mind the often-debated
| distinction (or lack thereof) between hacking and rapid prototyping.
| Without getting onto that topic, I WOULD be interested in hearing
| people's views on the use of statically-typed OOPLs in "real" rapid
| prototyping.

I have found SML to be excellent for R.P.  It is strictly statically
typed and interactive and has powerful abstraction mechanisms (not
object based).  One thing that makes it work so well for R.P. is the
use of type inference.  So, strict static type checking doesn't have
to be an obstacle to R.P.

                             Cheers,
                                     Thomas.