🚀 go-pugleaf

REPOST WITH CORRECTION:

In a strongly typed language such as Eiffel, the programmer must
declare the type of all its variables, arguments, and such. If the
programmer later changes its mind, these type declarations must be
updated everywhere, which is a tedious and error-prone process.

          ---vv---
Having no declared types just means that this sort of error does not happen,
while the other kinds of error probably remain at the same level.

REPLY TO JOSEPH PALLAS:

In article <pallas.670613621@red-dwarf> pallas@eng.sun.com (Joseph Pallas) writes:

   In <PX.91Apr1225918@hal.fct.unl.pt> I wrote:

   >Having no types ...

   Nope, try again.  How about, "Having no declared types ..."

Thank you. That was what I wanted to say.

   >just means that this sort of error does not happen,

   Nope, try again.  How about, "just means that this sort of error is
   not detected at compile time, but at run time,"

   >while the other kinds of error probably remain at the same level.

   People who think that dynamically typed languages result in typeless
   programs need to reflect on what they are doing when they write their
   programs.  If your program operates on some object, you can be certain
   that there is a type implied by that operation.

My previous posting obviously was ill written if people can interpret
it to mean something that I do not think at all.

Programmers ALWAYS think in types, even when the language is typeless
(in the sense of having a single universal "type", as Lisp or Prolog).

An entirely different matter is wether the programmer should be
required to declare the types of everything.  I state that doing this
is error-prone, specially when the programmer changes some type.

Type declarations detect type errors, but these errors tend to be
"book keeping errors", instead of errors in the logic of the algorithm
or some other "higher" errors.

About compile time versus run tim