Re: What's so great about lisp?

Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
> Or, "how likely is there to be an error, not detectable by a type
> system, in your algorithm or its implementation (be it sorting or
> otherwise)?". Not unlikely, I'd say.

>From my experience, that is very true when dynamic typing is required, e.g.
my GUI code. However, there are many places (most of my code) where I think
the type checker is likely to catch most (>50%?) errors. I watched myself
(?!) writing a rewrite interpreter last night and the OCaml and SML type
checkers literally caught all of my errors (it worked perfectly the first
time it ran).

Ultimately, this is so subjective that I can't see anyone drawing any useful
conclusions. It seems that most people either adopt dynamic or static
typing out of preference, as their programming skills evolve. I use both
but I choose to gravitate towards static typing when it is available.

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com
.