Re: In Praise of Strong Typing

Roedy Green wrote:
> 5. While you are in the process on making major changes to the
> grammar, consider allowing you to define new operators, BUT NOT
> redefine the basic + - * / glyphs which just leads to unmaintainable
> code.
I tentatively agree with most of your other points, but this I just plan 
disagree with.

You use the slipper-slop argument that just because someone can abuse 
operator overloading, they will.  People can write completely 
unmaintainable programs in Java. That doesn't mean Java is bad.  Nor 
does unmaintainable programs which use operator overloading mean that 
operator overloading is bad.

There have been times where I have heavily missed operator overloading 
in Java :-)
-- 
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>