🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2046@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:

>However, static typing implies more
>than that: it implies that expressions are constrained statically such
>a way that all expressions can be assigned types from a restricted
>set.  The restricted set is such that machine representations can be
>decided on at compile time

Yes.

>and such that no type information has to be
>associated with a value at runtime.

No.

>My claim is not now, and never has been, that all static type checking
>is bad, evil, or even rude.  I am only saying that in situations such
>as the above, it is the language implementator who should be taking
>care of type tags rather than the programmer.

Why not both?  A lot of people might agree that dynamic typing is
necessary in some cases too.  Maybe someday the two sides might agree
that the programmer should be allowed to specify types and/or classes
when it helps catch errors and/or improve efficiency, etc.; and that
the programmer should be allowed to omit specifications when it helps
speed development time or extend reusability.

>When the implementator
>does it, it leads to less code, less complexity, and fewer bugs.

No.  When the programmer is allowed to do the portions that need it,
it can also lead to less complexity and fewer bugs.
--
Norman Diamond       diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.