🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <641@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu>, eberard@ajpo (Edward Berard) writes:
I would be interested in getting your reaction to the
>following quotes from one of respondees:
>> More accurately, run-time typing places the burden on the run-time
>> system, whereas compile-time typing places the burden on the
>> compiler *and* the programmer (who must provide explicit type
				      ^^^^^^^^^^^^...
>> declarations and obey them at all times during program
>> development).

This is false for a polymorphic type system.

>> I would ask again what solid *experimental*
>> evidence anyone has to show that compile-time typing actually
>> results in programs more reliable than those possible with
>> run-time typing, *in the presence of the requirements evolution
>> that is present in any large, complex software project*.

Do you mean "practical experience"? I wrote 8000 lines in ML, and
hand-translated to 20000 lines of C, in 4 months, resulting in a
reliable piece of software. I don't know how to quantify that in any
objective way, though.

I suggest that compile-time typing serves the same purpose as
module interfaces: it lets you decide what you want different parts of
a project to see, and what operations you want to provide (I'm
thinking of a parameterised, abstract type system here).

		Nick.
--
Nick Rothwell,	Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh.
		nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk    <Atlantic Ocean>!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!nick
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
  "...all these moments... will be lost in time... like tears in rain."