Re: dynamic vs. static typing

[Joe Marshall <address@hidden>]

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.