Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!otter.hpl.hp.com!otter!sfk
From: sfk@otter.hpl.hp.com (Steve Knight)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Dynamic typing (part 3)
Message-ID: <2400035@otter.hpl.hp.com>
Date: 19 Mar 91 15:15:41 GMT
References: <602@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
Lines: 46

In response to a claim (or observation) made by David Gudeman that "dynamically 
typed languages are generally half to a tenth the size of programs in
statically typed languages"  Dan Bernstein reasonably writes back.

] I don't believe you. Give an example.

Of course, this gets us into the foolish realms of anecdotes and virility 
tests.  However, just because a challenge is foolish...  Well, perhaps it is
sufficient to say that this exchange reminded me of an amusing incident a 
couple of years ago between myself and a friend of mine.  (Who shall remain
nameless; unless you're reading this, Tim.)

After a rather boring stint at work, Tim into my office with a broad smile on
his face -- evidently having completed an exceptionally useless task 
successfully.  "Watch this," he said, and proceeded to demonstrate the 
capabilities of a simple program he'd prepared earlier while watching the
C compiler dither over a small pile of files.

This program read a file of syllables and printed out "passwords" composed
from three random syllables.  It was vaguely entertaining in that sort of
Friday afternoon-going-on-evening, let's-out-for-a-pizza-later kind of way.
Tim then showed me the source code.  Now Tim, I should explain, makes no
pretension of being a great C hacker (well, not then) but had composed the
program in a very workman-like way.  However, at several pages of code it 
seemed rather lengthy to me.

I leaned over my workstation and said, "Oh, it would have been a bit easier
in Pop11" and proceeded to <tappity-tappity-tap> for a few moments.  (Pop11 is
the dynamically typed language of this tale, by the way.)  What emerged was the
following few lines ...

    define program();             ;;; build a list of syllables
        lvars syllables = 'syllables'.discin.incharline.pdtolist;
        repeat 3 times
            syllables.oneof.pr    ;;; print a syllable 3 times
        endrepeat;
        nl( 1 );                  ;;; throw 1 new line
    enddefine;
    
I ran it a couple of times.  No problem -- too simple for an error.  Even for
me.  Suddenly, I felt two hands close around my windpipe.  As everything went 
black, I heard, "You <****>, it took me two hours to debug that <******-
******>."

Of course, being choked to death by irate C programmers is only one of the
many hazards of using a dynamically typed language ...