Re: the forward method [dynamic vs. static typing]

[Joe Marshall <address@hidden>]

Steve Dekorte <steve@dekorte.com> writes:

> Given that there is little reason to make a fully ST language that has
> forwarding (as it breaks the assumptions of ST) our choices are:
>
> 1. DT language that can support a flexible and powerful feature such
> as forwarding
> 2. ST language that cannot

I hate to defend the static typists, but why are you restricting your
choices?  Few static type aficionados are such purists as to disallow
all dynamic type discrimination.  Few programs are so dynamic as to
stymie all static analysis.  So what about these options:

  3. DT language that has some facility for certain kinds of static
     analysis.  (my personal favorite)

  4. ST language with `extensions' for late-bound type checking.