Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!news.cs.indiana.edu!arizona.edu!arizona!gudeman
From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Dynamic typing (part 3)
Message-ID: <615@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 13 Mar 91 01:21:07 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 24

In article  <25381:Mar1221:07:3891@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Dan Bernstein writes:
]
]Compiler writers generally find it convenient to catch type errors.

In a language with dynamic typing, everything from the parser to the
code generator tends to be much simpler.  Only the runtime system is
more complex (and not much more complex if you don't add all the extra
features that dynamic typing opens up).

]Programmers generally find it convenient to know the type of a variable

Programmers do know the types of variables with dynamic typing, they
just don't have to tell the computer.

]and to have types always checked at compile time (rather than as an
]optimization that a few compilers might provide). Who are you to argue
]with taste?

I'm someone who has experience with both methods, arguing mostly (I
suspect) with people who don't.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman