Re: MI: why?

• To: info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
• Subject: Re: MI: why?
• From: scorp@btinternet.com (Dave Harris)
• Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 08:15:02 -0500 (EST)
• Organization: Burry Holms Research
• References: <387F33C5.C8DA8D0C@lucent.com>
• Reply-To: brangdon@cix.co.uk
• Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.dylan:11480 comp.lang.smalltalk:94484

mayka@lucent.com (Lawrence G. Mayka) wrote:
> <Sigh>.  Perhaps languages don't "need" more than 1 and 0, but MI is
> *extremely* useful in dynamically typed languages, *if designed
> properly.*

I should have phrased it as "Dynamically type-checked languages can get by 
without MI better than statically type-checked ones". I was interested in 
the effect of a static type system on the language.

Dylan has static checking available. I imagine it would be impractical to 
design useful, statically checkable Dylan programs without MI of type. 
Whether MI is useful even in the absence of static checking is another 
matter; I broadly agree with you that it is.

  Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK | "Weave a circle round him thrice,
      brangdon@cix.co.uk      |   And close your eyes with holy dread,
                              |  For he on honey dew hath fed
 http://www.bhresearch.co.uk/ |   And drunk the milk of Paradise."

• Re: MI: why?
• From: "Lawrence G. Mayka" <mayka@lucent.com>

• Prev: Re: MI: why?
• Next: Re: A question
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread