🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <OLSON.91Apr6172626@lear.juliet.ll.mit.edu> olson@lear.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Olson) writes:
>People who get endlessly alarmed about the alleged lack of type saftey in
>a dynamically-typed languge are not well-informed about how Lisp or Smalltalk
>software development actually works.

Here, Here!  I'll second that.  And people who say "Well, you could do it 
just as well in a statically typed language if you had as big a runtime
system" I'll answer by saying "why do *most* dynamic languages have huge
libraries and great debuggers and *most* static languages have lousy
libraries and lousy debuggers?"  I suspect that because the static code
is so much less reusable that the incentive is to never change the
late-60's model of programming lest we break all that software.
People rave about GDB, but it looks worse to me than Delta on a
1968 release of CP-V.  Then look at the Smalltalk debugger, which
is not very big because it resuses most of the code from the editor,
browser, and compiler, and it blows any other debugger out of the water.
	       -- Darren

-- 
--- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware ---
----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, FDTs -----
  +=+=+ My time is very valuable, but unfortunately only to me +=+=+
+ When you drive screws with a hammer, screwdrivers are unrecognisable +