Barefoot coding
Danny Ayers doesn't think much of the barefoot post (on developing w/o static types) which I linked to yesterday. He says:
Let's say I come across a method like this :
def do_upload(pagename, request): ...Here I can guess from the context that it's a http request, so let's say I want to get the date header and print it in W3CDTF format. If it was typed, then I'd simply look in the documentation for that type (class). But how do I find out what methods 'request' supports?
hmm. We don't have that problem in Smalltalk. We have tools that can find implementors and senders of methods for us instantly - so it's an utter non-issue. The type information adds nothing of value in that regard. I'd suggest downloading a Smalltalk implementation and taking a look - you'll see why it's not a problem.

Comments
Senders/Implementors
[Andres Valloud] August 29, 2003 12:47:47.339
It's amazing that such a simple request like senders or implementors will make developers screech to a halt. Now, imagine refactoring without senders and implementors, without RB...
it's not so simple
[keith ray] August 29, 2003 20:36:20.507
I've had bad experiences in Squeak trying to figure out what a piece of code is trying to do, even though I could look at the senders and implementers... And in some cases, a method in a class that I was trying to understand wasn't being called by any other method at all, and I had no idea what the implementor was thinking. Write tests first, so every method/class has examples of usage and verification it works. Use good names. Put in some comments here and there...