Gilad Bracha writes...
So far, I have no firm conclusions about how to best address the problems monkey patching is trying to solve. I don’t deny that it is expedient and tempting. Much of the appeal of dynamic languages is of course the freedom to do such things...Gilad captures the essence of truly dynamic languages: freedom. Get out my way with your type theories. I am squarely in this camp for the time being.
Regardless, given my flattering portrayals of primate practices, you may deduce that my main comment on monkey patching is “just say no”. The problems it induces far outweigh its benefits. If you feel tempted, think hard about design alternatives. One can do better.
I've not run into all the problems Gilad apparently attributes to dynamic languages. (And I assert your language is *not* dynamic if it does not allow these kinds of extensions.) I will welcome Gilad's solution as long as it preserves all the value. Generally though we should favor fewer language mechanisms, embrace those simple mechanism that work, and rely on good programming practices.
His Newspeak could be the rare exception, but I've not seen many whole language advances that really improve things as much as programmers can improve their own practices. I wonder if Gilad is expecting his Newspeak to appeal to the developers he refers to as "baboons"? It seems that distrust of developers is alive and well.