Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Dynamic typing (part 3) Message-ID: Date: 12 Mar 91 15:21:42 GMT References: <602@optima.cs.arizona.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 16 In article <602@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: > Now people have actually come to believe, against all > evidence, that static typing is important for program reliability. No, they believe that dynamic typing imposes a certain unavoidable runtime overhead, and aren't willing to pay that cost. As computers get faster this becomes more of a moot point outside the frantic world of embedded controllers and videogames. You can argue how great that cost is... and certainly when people are happy with the performance of X, Windows, and Multifinder it's pretty daft to quibble over less than a factor of 10 or so cost... but it's the real reason people are still working in C and other Algol-derived languages. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"