🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Mar16.052952.10201@cs.cmu.edu> ram+@cs.cmu.edu (Rob MacLachlan) writes:
> I debug and test with typechecking on in Common Lisp, and so does everyone
> else I know.

I can't afford to use Lisp either: I don't find its slight advantages in
expressiveness to outweigh its slowness for all but the simplest
programs. Sure, these tradeoffs between compile time, run time, compile
space, run space, programming time, maintenance time, etc. will vary by
project and programmer---but static typing appears to greatly reduce
debugging time without hurting speed or space or effort for the vast
majority of projects. Why not take what you can get for free?

In contrast, the supposed conciseness of dynamically typed languages
costs dearly in compile time, run time, and (for projects with many
debugging runs) programming time. For these disadvantages it would have
to provide a huge benefit for maintenance, yet its proponents never seem
to come up with examples showing such a benefit.

> >Well, you could. All
> >you had to do was use static typing.
> Do your programs ever dump core?  That's a run-time error check, just not a
> very graceful one.

Yes, and one which could quite often have been prevented by stronger
compile-time checks.

---Dan