[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: dynamic vs. static typing

[Joe Marshall <jrm@ccs.neu.edu>]
> Ken Shan <ken@digitas.harvard.edu> writes:
> > I'm sorry but I'm losing your point here.  You have explained what it
> > means to parameterize a type ("list of strings" vs "list of integers"),
> > but not what it means to parameterize a function ("take the length of a
> > string list" vs "take the length of an integer list").  The reason the
> > latter is crucial is because in many statically typed languages these
> > two functions can be the same.
> I was proposing this as a counterexample of your earlier statement:
> > The intuition that I am trying to get at is, -some- part of your program
> > needs to assume -something- about the interface supported by your list
> > elements in order for the program overall to observably operate on the
> > list and its elements.
> There is some value to having a list where *no* part of your program
> assumes *anything* about the interface.

I can't understand what you mean here. I'm not being provocative,
facetious, or intentionally obtuse. I really honestly can't think of a
single example. Could you provide one?


Matt Hellige                  matt@immute.net