🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <OLSON.91May2145734@goneril.juliet.ll.mit.edu> olson@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Olson) writes:
>In article <2672@optima.cs.arizona.edu> cjeffery@optima.UUCP (Clinton Jeffery) writes:
>
>   I would.  I am not willing to type one keystroke (e.g. type declarations)
>   more than I have to in order to satisfy your need for everyone to do so.
>   What is this sweeping generalization doing here after your very nice
>   concession to dynamically typed languages earlier in your post?
>
>Um, well, in my opinion, the extra keystrokes involved are the weakest of
>the arguments against static typing.  I mean, the botom line isn't keystrokes,
>its total programmer effort. 
>-- Steve Olson
>-- MIT Lincoln Laboratory
>-- olson@juliet.ll.mit.edu

I know that "functional language" is considered a dirty term in this group :-),
but there seems to be a lot known about typing-systems in relation to them.
Before following up to this message, why don't you look at, say, Ch. 7 of
Field & Harrison's _Functional_Programming_, or read about the Standard ML
type system (note that Standard ML has type-inference, so no extra typing
is required, unless the compiler cannot infer the type itself, which is a
rare event, although simple to program: fun f x y = x + y.  Now + is defined
for reals & integers, and the compiler needs to know the type of one operand
(or both) or the result in order to type the expression).  Note:  I'm sure
there are better references than Field & Harrison, that's just one that I
happen to have on hand.

A good question: how might the Standard ML type system be adopted to an OO
world ?

-- 
Drew Dean
Drew_Dean@rain.andrew.cmu.edu
[CMU provides my net connection; they don't necessarily agree with me.]