Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:6951 comp.object:2796
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!boingo.med.jhu.edu!haven!ni.umd.edu!uc780.umd.edu!cs450a03
From: cs450a03@uc780.umd.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.object
Subject: RE: Dynamic typing -- To Have and Have Not (was Runti
Message-ID: <20MAR91.07593097@uc780.umd.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 91 07:59:30 GMT
References: <PCG.91Mar13185855@aberdb.test.aber.ac.uk> <18926:Mar1422:18:5691@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Mar16.052952.10201@cs.cmu.edu> <352 <KERS.91Mar19082354@cdollin.hpl.hp.com>
Sender: usenet@ni.umd.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: The University of Maryland University College
Lines: 20
Nntp-Posting-Host: uc780.umd.edu

Chris Dollin writes:
>Perhaps Dan would like to explain why dynamically typed languages
>"cost dearly in compile-time", since the compiler is performing fewer
>checks? I can think of three possible interpretations: ...

You missed one:  That the compiler was thrown together in a "short"
period of time, etc.   

And another:  Because the compiler is intended to optimize the hell
out of critical sections of code, it spends quite a bit of CPU on
optimizing.

Another one:  That there is a poor match between language operations
and machine architecture.  Part of the fix for this is coding style,
but it still feeds the other problems (makes them nice, healthy,
well-fed problems).

C'Est la vie.

Raul Rockwell