Re: Program compression

On 26 Jul., 10:43, jaycx2.3.calrob...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Robert
Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:
Haskell, SML, OCaml, Mathematica, F# and Scala all allow real
problems to be solved much more concisely than with Lisp. Indeed, I
think it is difficult to imagine even a single example where Lisp
is competitively concise.
What does "solved much more concisely" mean??
From: Jon Harrop <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
....
Why do you think statically typed languages completely dominate
general purpose programming?

Because a lot of people don't know any better and are stuck
with installed code base (legacy code) which must be maintained.

I get the impression that you think that only concepts supported
by your favorite language (LISP) are good concepts. If some
concept is not present in LISP you conclude that it is bad and
everybody using it does not know any better.

I know that you hate static type checking, but I think that your
should look at concepts from outside your (LISP) world.
I tried to include answers to your previous arguments aggainst
static typ checking in my FAQ at:
http://seed7.sourceforge.net/faq.htm#static_type_checking
Basing on this arguments, it would be nice to discuss
static type checking.

BTW.: I am still waiting to get an answer for my other mail in
this thread.

Greetings Thomas Mertes

Seed7 Homepage: http://seed7.sourceforge.net
Seed7 - The extensible programming language: User defined statements
and operators, abstract data types, templates without special
syntax, OO with interfaces and multiple dispatch, statically typed,
interpreted or compiled, portable, runs under linux/unix/windows.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Program compression
    ... TM> supported by your favorite language (LISP) are good concepts. ... then call the Java compiler to compile that source file to a Class ... TM-STC> Since static type checking makes run-time type checks unnecessary, ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request
    ... :>:> I do not consider myself a Lisp programmer, ... :>:> enough Lisp to conclude that you probably are correct that the ability ... :>:> within Lisp could very well outweigh the advantages of static typing. ... :> I do these little steps all the time, _with_ static type checks, ...
    (comp.lang.ada)
  • Re: Why I dont believe in static typing
    ... I KNOW it's not the notion and utility of static type checking as a tool ... While I am fully aware that lisp types as specified in the hyperspec could ... "(declare (type blah var))", but I humbly submit that that is woolly ... checking by compilers - which are of course treating the variables as data ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Mathematica 7 compares to other languages
    ... Without static type checking, Raymond failed to catch this error before ... making a quip about Lisp being blub. ... If I had spent more time thinking about this, ... that static typing would have stopped me from maaking this error. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Alternatives 4
    ... declarations, declamations, etc, and printed warnings ... The problem is that it can infer very little type information because ... the Lisp language was not designed to express type information. ... it could annotate the source with static type information to improve ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)