Ovid

This forms part of what Alan Kay calls “late binding” [see link below] and describes as part of what makes Lisp and Smalltalk great, which is something of a lost art today, mainly because most contemporary programming languages (the usual suspects in the statically-typed camp but also languages one would not expect, Python / Javascript) go out of their way to de-emphasize it. I feel that Perl was the last, massively popular language that promoted late binding. https://ovid.github.io/articles/alan-kay-and-oo-programming.html

>This is about message passing at an abstract level, which is what Alan Kay imagined with Smalltalk. The merits of Alan Kay's message passing are fine but it is not relevant to this case of the author writing an inappropriate solution because he misunderstood a commenter's feedback. The "this" in your "_this_ is about message passing at an abstract level" comment seems to only refer to blog article #2 in isolation -- instead of considering how it was provoked by the author's previous misunderstanding. >You are the one missing the point You want to lecture me on being wrong but it seems that you are the one jumping into the middle of a conversation without realizing what communications have transpired so far. If you didn't completely read both blog articles and the user comment, you're missing the full context. Let's recap: The blog author wrote 2 articles. Blog article #1[1] didn't say anything about "external systems 3rd party API". The blog author himself brought up the issue of dynamic vs static in regards to "hot swapping" code without restarting the system. It was not "external systems". It included an example: print customers.fetch(customer_id).last_name At the bottom[2][3] of that blog, a commenter named Samuel Falvo II asks what to do when a broken "customer.last_name" message fails because it wasn't statically checked for syntax errors. The commenter also wasn't talking about "external APIs". He was saying static compile checking helps him find…