> Well, my hope is somehow we can get types to be a bit more implicit
> than the usual mess most people are used to.
I have grave concerns about 'implicit' typing. In my experience DWIM-style
typing can lead to serious hair pulling and long debug sessions over simple
errors. Now, if you can give me implicitness without unintended post-compile
behavior...
<snip>
> > Because templates provide much-needed flexibility in algorithm and class
> > development, C++ programmers don't have to use many of the workarounds
that
> > mjd identified.
>
> Yes, they have lots of different work arounds. ;)
Regardless, a lot of mjd's examples seem dated. He seems to have a clear
point to make. I just wish his examples related to any programming I've done
in recent memory. I think that OO (and generic programming specifically)
reduce his argument. But then again, maybe I'm too entrenched in the C++
mindset. Wouldn't be the first time.
<snip>
> > - Provide a type placeholder in the parameter list (a la C++ function
> > templates)
> > - Provide a type hierarchy for all types (a la Haskell)
Let's not forget Java, a less obscure example.
> I think a type hierarchy makes much more sense than unleashing the hell
> of templates on Perl.
Perl was born in downtown Hell! Bring it on...
- Matt
