🚀 go-pugleaf

In article  <PCG.91Mar13185855@aberdb.test.aber.ac.uk> Piercarlo Antonio Grandi writes:
]...
]1) Don't provide dynamic typing as a language primitive and make it
]prohibitive...
]
]2) Don't provide dynamic typing as a language primitive, and make it
]possible to implement it...
]
]3) Provide dynamic typing only...
]
]4) Provide *both* dynamic and static typing...
]
]I reckon that Gudeman thinks that Bernstein advocates 1), while
]Bernstein really advocates 2); Gudeman himself advocates 3), and I
]advocate 4).

No, Gudeman thinks that Bernstein advocates (2), Gudeman himself
advocates (4), and Gudeman is willing to accept Grandi's word that
Grandi advocates (4).

Didn't anyone read "Runtime Polymorphism... part 2"?  OK, maybe part 1
one was so uninspiring that no one bothered with the sequal.  Anyway,
in that posting I described my preference for a system with optional
static typing.

Maybe my bickering with the B&D language people over the importance of
static typing has lead people to believe that I am opposed to static
typing in all forms, but I am not.  I am opposed to any language
feature that restricts my options and increases my effort in the name
of security.  The language designer has no idea how much security my
program requires.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman