🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Apr8.085602.5082@tkou02.enet.dec.com> diamond@jit345.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond) writes:
   The multi-megabyte run time system would be useful while developing
   programs in statically typed languages too, and then you'd never see
   the mystery core dump.  

I certainly agree with the first part of your statement - witness Saber-C -
but not the second.  The real gut-buster problems I see in my line of work
are when a guy calls up from a remote site and says "It ran great for 3 days,
and then it crashed!!".  My experience has been that the dynamically-typed
system fails and you fix it the first time.  When the statically typed
system fails ... maybe you get lucky ... maybe you don't.  Note:  I'm
assuming the statically typed system is "deployed" without the run-time
environment - see below.

                            Debates between static and dynamic typing should
   center on the advantages of programming in each kind of language, not
   on what can be done with multi-megabyte support packages.

Agreed in principle, but harder to do than you think.  The poster who
talked about "A" and "B" languages accurately described how languages
- in practice - tend to line up.  Dynamic typing pretty much implies a
elaborate run-time environment, so to do an "apples-to-apples" comparison
we need a statically-typed language with a elaborate run-time enviroment.
So go off and design one, and report back to this list :-).  Or maybe some 
exist - enlighten me.

   --
   Norman Diamond       diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
   If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.

- Steve Olson
  MIT Lincoln Laboratory
  olson@juliet.ll.mit.edu