Loose type checking in E

[Ka-Ping Yee]

On Sat, 24 Oct 1998, Tyler Close wrote:
> 
> Maybe I should also point out that an object with "dozens" of methods is an
> exceptionally poor idea.

[-] Dozens of methods are sometimes necessary.
I don't think this is generally true.  There is a limit on how many 
methods an object might reasonably be expected to have, but i am
certain that limit must be higher than, say, 10 (beyond which it is
clearly tedious to manually delegate individual methods).

> By forcing the programmer to write out the stubs, maybe we could hope
> that s/he won't be so mindless and will realize that the design sucks.

[-] Asking people to redesign hurts popularity and interoperability.
These kinds of broad sweeping statements only avoid the issue.  Who are
we to say that you should be forced to totally redesign software when
you try to do things in E just because "we know what's right for you"?
Who's to say that this programmer even has any control over the
superclass?  Modularity is important to the success of E.

> This example illustrates the well-known danger in using macros.

[?] What danger in using macros?
Which is what -- that they make your life more convenient?


!ping