Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:6982 comp.object:2824
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!visix!news
From: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.object
Subject: Re: blip too. [Re: Dynamic typing -- To Have and Have Not ...]
Message-ID: <1991Mar21.191122.11398@visix.com>
Date: 21 Mar 91 19:11:22 GMT
References: <22032@yunexus.YorkU.CA>
	<11820:Mar1923:59:3591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <22075@yunexus.YorkU.CA>
	<1244:Mar2021:51:4591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Sender: news@visix.com
Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA
Lines: 50

brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:

   > | Lisp doesn't even provide full access to pointers.
   > Imagine that! ;-)

   It doesn't.

That depends on the Lisp.  T, for example, not only has a very good compiler,
but provides a data type called a "locative" that acts like a pointer, but
doesn't even get confused when GCs happen.  Most modern Lisps provide just
as much machine-level access as, say, C does.

   Or is it heresy in your faith to even conceive of the idea that Lisp
   doesn't understand pointers as well as C?

In my case, it's more experience than faith.  Have you actually looked at
what's been going on in the Lisp world over the past 5-7 years?  You might
be very surprised.

   Would you write a compressor in a dynamically typed language?

Yes.  In fact, I'd *rather* write a compressor in a dynamically typed
language.

   I wouldn't, because each compile run takes a
   noticeable amount of time, and each test run takes a noticeable amount
   of time.

That has mostly to do with the particular compiler you are using, and
not much to do with any inherent properties of the language itself.
The fact that C may be easier to compile (for some value of "easier")
than Lisp is a separate claim, and one I would be happy to concede.
However, ease of compilation is not the constraining factor in
software development.  If it were, we'd all be using assembler.  Not
that C is very much of an improvement, mind you...

   Maybe it's a silly question, but for me it exemplifies what's wrong with
   dynamically typed languages.

From what you've said so far, it sounds like descriptions of what's wrong
with the state of much the commercial dynamically-type language market.  On
that I have no argument, but I think that blaming this on the fact that
a language is dynamically typed is bordering on religious belief.

--
Amanda Walker						      amanda@visix.com
Visix Software Inc.					...!uunet!visix!amanda
-- 
"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view."
		--Obi-Wan Kenobi in "The Empire Strikes Back"