Re: Extending Lua for multiple light userdata types

[David Given <dg@...>]

steve donovan wrote:
[...]
> It's a popular idea currently; annotate a dynamic language with
> optional types so it becomes possible to check more statically, and
> easier to build IDEs.  E.g. Dart, and now TypeSafe, as annotated
> versions of JavaScript.  Of course, they both go beyond, since people
> are terribly nostalgic about class-based OOP.

...I should probably mention Strongtalk:

http://strongtalk.org/

A now-defunct Blue Book compatible Smalltalk with optional strong
typing, which was then used to produce really good JITted machine code.
You don't get much more dynamic *or* more OO than Smalltalk.

That happened in about 1996, and was then killed off by Java. The system
wasn't publicly released until 2006.

-- 
┌─── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ───── http://www.cowlark.com ─────
│ "There does not now, nor will there ever, exist a programming
│ language in which it is the least bit hard to write bad programs." ---
│ Flon's Axiom

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature