Re: Lightness vs. Largeness

[Dan Sugalski <address@hidden>]

At 12:53 PM 12/5/2001 -0700, Robert Spector wrote:
>I think an LL has to be "low overhead" -- simple expressions like "(+ 1 
>2)" can run on their own.
>
> From the discussions on the list it seems that "programming-in-the-large" 
> implies OO and mandatory types.

I, for one, don't think OO's mandatory for programming in the large.

>
>Question:  is an LL then constitutionally incompatible with solving the 
>problems implied by the phrase "programming-in-the-large"?   (Or is that 
>phrase somehow pejorative?)

I don't think so. Just because types aren't necessary doesn't mean they 
can't be required. There's nothing wrong with having optional levels of 
strictness you can enable to set requirements that must be satisfied at 
compile time, which might be off in the default case.

					Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
dan@sidhe.org                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk