Hi Marc, > Reading this, I realized, that I never saw such type-checking in Pharo > production code. So the question is, what are recommended design principles > for that problem in Smalltalk? Do you use what is called duck typing?
I have carefully studied the topic of type checking in the past. I came to the conclusion that type errors are too easy to fix to justify a support in the language. There are always exceptions, for example, if you wish to provide guaranties and proof on some aspect of the language, interesting to hardware driver developers and critical software developers. In that case, you may want to have type annotation, maybe. But all in all, static type checking is more a distraction than a real benefit for practitioners in my opinion. Cheers, Alexandre
