Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:6949 comp.object:2794
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!hsdndev!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: <17928:Mar2012:22:5491@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 91 12:22:54 GMT
References: <1991Mar16.052952.10201@cs.cmu.edu> <352 <KERS.91Mar19082354@cdollin.hpl.hp.com>
Organization: IR
Lines: 11

In article <KERS.91Mar19082354@cdollin.hpl.hp.com> kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (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?

You're right, I should have said ``costs dearly in either compile time
or run time, and in either case (for projects with many debugging runs)
programming time.'' My point is that I can't afford to make that choice
except for projects where the compile time or run time is going to be
very small no matter what language I use. That's rarely the case.

---Dan