Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:7035 comp.object:2858
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!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: <16671:Mar2516:17:5291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 25 Mar 91 16:17:52 GMT
References: <KERS.91Mar19082354@cdollin.hpl.hp.com> <17928:Mar2012:22:5491@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <KERS.91Mar21121931@cdollin.hpl.hp.com>
Organization: IR
Lines: 13

In article <KERS.91Mar21121931@cdollin.hpl.hp.com> kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) writes:
> OK, but I'm still puzzled as to why you included the option of dearer
> compile-time costs at all. Can you illustrate a case where a compiler for a
> dynamically-typed language is *slower* than a compiler for a statically typed
> language - when the compiler is written in the same language for both (ie,
> we're comparing apples and apples)?

Many people have spent many years trying to optimize dynamically typed
languages (i.e., to get rid of the dynamic typing in the object code),
with some success. When a compiler *doesn't* optimize a dynamically
typed language, the final code is hellishly slow (as in most Lisps).

---Dan