Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:6932 comp.object:2778
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!ai.mit.edu!tmb
From: tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.object
Subject: Re: blip [Re: Dynamic typing -- To Have and Have Not ...]
Message-ID: <14160@life.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 19 Mar 91 20:34:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: life.14160
References: <PCG.91Mar13185855@aberdb.test.aber.ac.uk> <18926:Mar1422:18:5691@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Mar16.052952.10201@cs.cmu.edu> <3523:Mar1803:21:0591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <22032@yunexus.YorkU.CA>
Sender: news@ai.mit.edu
Reply-To: tmb@ai.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Lines: 16

In article <22032@yunexus.YorkU.CA>, oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes:
|> >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.
|> 
|> Dan, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I wouldn't be quite so harsh. Static type checking is very good
at eliminating a large fraction of those mistakes that people
commonly make. As a side-benefit, simpler compilers are able to
generate better code if type information is available at compile
time.

To me, polymorphic statically typed programming languages like
ML are currently the best compromise between flexibility, compile-time
checking, and efficiency.