Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!rex!ames!haven!ni.umd.edu!uc780.umd.edu!cs450a03
From: cs450a03@uc780.umd.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: RE: Generecity and static/dynamic typing
Message-ID: <18MAR91.08290170@uc780.umd.edu>
Date: 18 Mar 91 08:29:01 GMT
References: <595@optima.cs.arizona.edu> <2840@enea.se> <6703:Mar1812:01:2791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: usenet@ni.umd.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: The University of Maryland University College
Lines: 27
Nntp-Posting-Host: uc780.umd.edu

Dan Brnstd writes:

>Emacs is written in C, with a very small percentage of ``helper'' code.
>Until someone can explain how a dynamically typed language would remove
>any length from Emacs other than in the helper code, I don't see why we
>should accept claims of extra productivity or conciseness.

Eh?  You say that if someone does not re-write emacs, presumably with
all it's features and internal variables, in a way that results in
less code, dynamically typed languages are without merit.  You
graciously imply that if someone were to do such a thing, you MIGHT
consider that dynamically typed languages allow productivity or
conciseness?  Ah, my friend, in the face of such logic, there is
naught I can do but admit defeat--not only for myself, but for all of
like mind.

I should mention though that emacs-lisp is a dynamically typed
language.  Maybe a bit less concise than it could be.  But in any
event, emacs-lisp is used for productivity reasons.  Even implying
otherwise invites a religious flame war :)

Or maybe you weren't talking about GNU emacs, but some other program?
In which case I'll guarantee you it's less expressive.

Your mileage may vary.

Raul Rockwell