Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!apple!netcom!amdcad!dgcad!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Dynamic typing (part 3)
Summary: misinterpreting a phrase
Message-ID: <1492@sheol.UUCP>
Date: 24 Mar 91 03:37:36 GMT
References: <1021@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Lines: 13

- gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
-] As late as Algol 68, the arguments are mostly about whether
-] things can, *in principle*, be compiled;
- Yep, psychotic fixation on efficiency.  They weren't arguing on
- whether something could be _implemented_, they were worried about
- producing machine code.

It seems clear that David is misinterpreting the above statement.  There
is NOT a fixation on efficency evident here...  the phrase "can, in
principle, be compiled" means exactly what David means by "can be
implemented" in this context. 
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw