🚀 go-pugleaf

Chuck Peterson:
> Perhaps statically typed languages should be used like assembly
> language, where the added security (as with performance for
> assembly) justifies recoding.  (Perhaps both security and
> performance in some measure.)

Perhaps I'm missing some fundamental insight, but I fail to see how
static typing provides any sort of security.

Consider an arbitrary program, with (for example) several thousand
variables and a few dozen types.  If the program says:  f(x),
what does static typing buy you, security-wise?  You can only
misidentify x a few hundred ways instead of a few thousand?  (Awesome
reliability there).

Unless you are intending to allow only one instance of a type in any
lexical name-space?  That would be security!  [And you'd be writing
your program at least twice, once in "type expressions", and once in
"imperative expressions".  There's nothing quite like trying to keep
two versions of the same thing in sync to improve reliability...]

Performance, you can get, to the extent that your compiler
pre-computes the results of your program.  ("Static typing" means
evaluate "type expressions" at compile time).

Raul Rockwell