[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: dual-language systems increase modularity
On 17 Nov 2003, at 0:17, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> (2) You want tools that help you infer and maintain "invariants" or
> relationships" among pieces of code. This is where the entire LL
> falls short and just fails to see why we can't grow. We (PLT) has some
> with that. We have had two Hindley-Milner soft typers (incl. Andrew's
> Soft Scheme)
> and two SBA soft typers (incl MrSpidey). These tools are by no means
> perfect and
> don't do enough. But they are examples of what I mean when I say we
> need to be
> able to write some thoughts down and have them checked when we modify
> that have grown too complex for our sake. If we (LL) were to invest
> in any joint
> infrastructure, then it is exactly that aspect that we should tackle.
The approach described in
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/mens02maintaining.html seems very promising.
The problems I see with static type systems is each of them provides
one specific set of type rules that is claimed to be general-purpose. A
"light-weight" approach should be more flexible, IMHO, and this is what
the authors of that papers are heading at: You can change the rules for
a program and thus make them domain-specific.
Tyler: "How's that working out for you?"
Tyler: "Keep it up, then."