What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Tassilo v. Parseval tassilo.von.parseval at rwth-aachen.de
Wed Jun 1 06:09:43 CEST 2005

Also sprach Dale King:

> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 May 2005 09:16:02 +0200, Tassilo v. Parseval
>> <tassilo.von.parseval at rwth-aachen.de> wrote: 
>>> [...] I haven't yet come across a language that is both statically and
>>>strongly typed, in the strictest sense of the words. I wonder whether
>>>such a language would be usable at all.
>> Modula2 claims to be both statically typed and strongly typed.  And
>> your wonder at its usablity is justified.
> I used a variant of Modula-2 and it was one of the best languages I have 
> ever used. That strong, static type checking was a very good thing. It 
> often took a lot of work to get the code to compile without error. 
> Usually those errors were the programmers fault for trying to play fast 
> and loose with data. But once you got it to compile it nearly always worked.

I am only familiar with its successor Modula-3 which, as far as I
understand, is Modula-2 with uppercased keywords and some OO-notion
bolted onto it (I still recall 'BRANDED' references). 

I have to say that doing anything with this language was not exactly a

use bigint;

More information about the Python-list mailing list