Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!otter.hpl.hp.com!hpltoad!cdollin!kers From: kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Dynamic typing (part 3) Message-ID: Date: 26 Mar 91 11:54:16 GMT References: <1020@optima.cs.arizona.edu> Sender: news@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Usenet News Administrator) Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK. Lines: 24 In-Reply-To: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu's message of 22 Mar 91 14:17:44 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: cdollin.hpl.hp.com David responds: In article Chris Dollin writes: ] ]Perhaps David should show us some examples where he thinks dynamic types are ]``essential'' Can't think of a one. Dynamic typing is a convenience and a productivity enhancer, but it isn't essential. I made myself less than clear. I don't use ``essential'' in the sense of ``can't be programmed without'', because almost nothing is essential in that sense; I meant that, without dynamic types, the expression of the code would be more obscure, or longer, or plain inelegant. Incidentally, David, are we arguing for dynamic typing (as in Lisp, Pop11, etc) or simple absence of mandatory type declarations (as in ML)? It makes a difference. -- Regards, Kers. | "You're better off not dreaming of the things to come; Caravan: | Dreams are always ending far too soon."