🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2397@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>In article  <1991Apr24.051522.28988@tkou02.enet.dec.com> Norman Diamond writes:
nd>> Maybe someday the two sides might agree
nd>>that the programmer should be allowed to specify types and/or classes
nd>>when it helps catch errors and/or improve efficiency, etc.; and that
nd>>the programmer should be allowed to omit specifications when it helps
nd>>speed development time or extend reusability.

dg>>>When the implementator
dg>>>does it, it leads to less code, less complexity, and fewer bugs.
dg>       ^ (meaing dynamic typing)
          ^ sorry, I thought you just meant "typing"

nd>>No.  When the programmer is allowed to do the portions that need it,
nd>>it can also lead to less complexity and fewer bugs.

dg>That doesn't make any sense.

Agreed.  I think the implementor should do dynamic typing.  However, the
programmer should specify the types of the static parts and specify which
parts are dynamic.  (Well never mind; this opinion got me fired from my
previous job, and is neither understood nor relevant at my present one.)
--
Norman Diamond       diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.