Re: More static type fun.

From: Pascal Costanza (costanza_at_web.de)
Date: 11/18/03 

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:09:08 +0100

Dirk Thierbach wrote:
> Christopher C. Stacy <cstacy@dtpq.com> wrote:
>
>>Raffael Cavallaro ("Raffael") writes:
>>
>>> Dirk Thierbach <dthierbach@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> [Using the language appropriate features instead of a Lisp list]
>
>>>But it is precisely this requirement that the programmer think
>>>differently that constitutes an interruption to the flow of
>>>exploratory programming.
>
> No, it doesn't. That's a requirement that you adapt to the *language*
> you are using. If I use Lisp, I have to think in Lisp. If I use
> Smalltalk, I have to think in Smalltalk. I cannot write Lisp in
> Smalltalk, or in Haskell. That's exactly the same mistake that Pascal
> makes all the time.

Maybe I have used a very bad wording in this regard.

I could equally ask the question why Haskell doesn't allow me to
completely switch off static typing in order to use a more exploratory
programming style, or for example, run a program that contains type
errors in order to see what happens at runtime, and some other things
that have been mentioned as advantages of dynamic type system.

The question is not why I need to switch from Lisp to another language
in order to make use of some of the advantages of static type systems,
but rather why do I need to switch languages at all in order to switch
between dynamic and static typing.

(For example, Strongtalk and Objective-C are relatively flexible in this
regard - you can choose to use dynamic or static typing on a
case-by-case basis. However, their static typed part uses explicit typing.)

Pascal

P.S.: Of course, I want s-expressions, but that's just a detail. ;-) 

-- 
Pascal Costanza               University of Bonn
mailto:costanza@web.de        Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de  Römerstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)

Relevant Pages