Xref: utzoo comp.arch:14640 comp.lang.lisp:2945 comp.lang.smalltalk:1778 comp.lang.misc:4507
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!crdgw1!sunflower!chao
From: chao@sunflower.crd.ge.com (William Chao)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: why tagged immediate floats are good
Keywords: garbage collection, generational garbage collection, floating point
Message-ID: <6143@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 18 Mar 90 16:22:37 GMT
References: <1990Mar10.234555.150@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Followup-To: comp.arch
Organization: General Electric Corporate R&D Center
Lines: 21

In the paper "Basic Polymorphic typechecking," by Luca Cardelli,
Science of Computer Programming 8 (1987) pp. 147-172. On page 150:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Polymorphism in language comes from the interaction of two contrasting
programming language design goals: static typing and reusability.
             :
             :
Polymorphic type systems try to reconcile these two goals
by providing all the safety of statically typed languages,
and most (but not all) the flexibility of untyped languages.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My 1st question: Why he says "but not all?"
2nd question: It seems that the "full" flexibility of untyped languages
              will never be achieved by static typing, then static binding.
	      Does this imply that we got to have dynamic binding to accomplish
	      the full reusability?
3rd question: People (especially real-time systems) are against dynamic binding
	      because it is too slow. Some people use the same reason (too
	      slow) to against object-oriented programming. Can we do somethings
	      about this?
I will appreciate whoever in this news group gives me the answer.