Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:6915 comp.object:2769 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.object Subject: Re: Dynamic typing -- To Have and Have Not (was Runti Message-ID: <3523:Mar1803:21:0591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Date: 18 Mar 91 03:21:05 GMT References: <18926:Mar1422:18:5691@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Mar16.052952.10201@cs.cmu.edu> Organization: IR Lines: 27 In article <1991Mar16.052952.10201@cs.cmu.edu> ram+@cs.cmu.edu (Rob MacLachlan) writes: > I debug and test with typechecking on in Common Lisp, and so does everyone > else I know. I can't afford to use Lisp either: I don't find its slight advantages in expressiveness to outweigh its slowness for all but the simplest programs. Sure, these tradeoffs between compile time, run time, compile space, run space, programming time, maintenance time, etc. will vary by project and programmer---but static typing appears to greatly reduce debugging time without hurting speed or space or effort for the vast majority of projects. Why not take what you can get for free? In contrast, the supposed conciseness of dynamically typed languages costs dearly in compile time, run time, and (for projects with many debugging runs) programming time. For these disadvantages it would have to provide a huge benefit for maintenance, yet its proponents never seem to come up with examples showing such a benefit. > >Well, you could. All > >you had to do was use static typing. > Do your programs ever dump core? That's a run-time error check, just not a > very graceful one. Yes, and one which could quite often have been prevented by stronger compile-time checks. ---Dan