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

Re: dynamic vs. static typing

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Florin Mihaila wrote:

> I think there also exists a psychological component to the chasm between
> proponents and critics of types.

This seems to me to be a key observation.

I do not fall into any of Shriram's four categories
http://www.ai.mit.edu/~gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg04307.html since
I have no antipathy towards automatic static typing as found in ML.

Overbearing commitment? None.  Heavy responsibility to keep a promise?
None.  On the contrary, I wilfully break the type system to see what would
be needed if I changed an interface.  The type checker is a friendly and
tireless assistant who will remind me of details that I forget (or choose
to forget).  I am not stressed by my assistant. I do not hit walls, there
is no angst.

I also work with language processors which have no static type
checking and then I really miss the tireless assistant.


I add six and Hey! Look! It compiles!
Shouts a guy who thinks types are all vile.
   I'm in Shriram's 3rd slot,
   and I never care what
the compiler must do ate my file.